You are here

Unique Personnel (U.K.) Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

This announced inspection took place on 5 and 8 December 2017. This was the provider’s first inspection since their registration at a new location in April 2017. Studio 43.3 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their houses. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection 12 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe with the staff. The service had clear procedures to recognise and respond to abuse. All staff completed safeguarding training. Senior staff completed risk assessments for people who used the service which provided sufficient guidance for staff to minimise identified risks. The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce reoccurrence.

The service had enough staff to support people and carried out satisfactory background checks of staff before they started working. The service had an on call system to make sure staff had support outside the office working hours. Staff supported people so they took their medicine safely. People were protected from the risk of infection.

Senior staff carried out an initial assessment of needs and risks of each person prior to the start of the service. The service provided an induction and training, and supported staff through regular supervision and observation visits to help them undertake their role.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People consented to their care before they were delivered. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities within the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff supported people with food preparation. People’s relatives coordinated health care appointments to meet people’s needs, and staff were available to support people to access health care appointments if needed. Staff worked with other services to ensure an effective joint-working.

People told us they were consulted about their care and support needs. People were supported to be as independent in their care as possible. Staff supported people in a way which was caring, respectful, and protected their privacy and dignity. Staff developed people’s care plans that were tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly and were up to date. Staff completed daily care records to show what support and care they provided to each person.

The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints. People knew how to complain and would do so if necessary.

The service sought the views of people who used the services. As a result of the inspection feedback, the provider notified the CQC about a safeguarding concern. Staff felt supported by the provider. The service had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received and they worked in partnership with health and social care professionals.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they were safe and that staff treated them well. The service had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults from abuse. Staff understood the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred.

The service completed risk assessments and management plans to reduce identified risks to people.

The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce reoccurrence.

The service had enough staff to support people and who had undergone satisfactory background checks before they started working.

Staff supported people so they took their medicines safely.

People were protected from the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was effective.

People commented positively about staff and told us they supported them properly.

Senior staff carried out an initial assessment of needs and risks of each person prior to the start of the service. Appropriate mobility equipment were in place to maximise people’s independence.

The service provided an induction and training for staff. Staff were supported through regular supervision to help them undertake their role.

Staff sought consent from people when offering them support. The provider and staff acted in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People’s relatives coordinated health care appointments and staff were available to support people to access health care appointments if needed. Staff worked with other services to ensure an effective joint-working.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they were consulted about their care and support needs.

Staff treated people with respect and kindness, and encouraged them to maintain their independence.

Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was responsive.

The service developed care plans with people to meet their needs. Care plans included the level of support people needed and what they could manage to do by themselves.

People knew how to complain and would do so if necessary. The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 February 2018

The service was well-led.

People commented positively about the management of the service.

There was a registered manager in post. They kept staff updated about any changes to people’s needs. As a result of the inspection feedback, the provider notified the CQC about a safeguarding concern.

The service held staff meetings, where staff shared learning and good practice so they understood what was expected of them at all levels.

The service had systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received. The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals.