You are here

Archived: Unity Care Solutions Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 23 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Unity Care Solution is a nursing and domiciliary care agency, based in Eastbourne. At the time of our inspection, they provided care to 14 people living in their own homes. It provided a service to adults and children, some with complex health and care needs that required high levels of support.

Not everyone using Unity Care Solution received the regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection, we rated the service as Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Although the registered manager was not present at the inspection, the branch manager gave support. The branch manager had recently applied to be the registered manager of the service and is currently going through the registration process.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, the provider did not always have understanding of who could legally give consent on people’s behalf. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

People were safe. Staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. People had a range of detailed and individualised risk assessments to keep them safe. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to ensure peoples safety and contingency plans to ensure people still received care in the event of an emergency.

Staff received regular training, specific to people’s needs. They received supervisions and attended meetings to ensure they were well supported and had the knowledge and skills to support people. People’s health was improved with regular input from a variety of professionals.

Relative's felt that staff were kind and caring and told us people liked staff that supported them. It was evident that staff knew people well and everyone we spoke to felt that strong relationships had been built with people and their families. People's privacy, dignity and independence were promoted at all times.

Care plans were person centred and emphasised involvement from people, their relatives and health professionals. Relatives felt that they were listened to and were confident complaints were dealt with effectively.

Relatives, staff and professionals felt that the service was well led. The registered manager completed a variety of audits, including staff and people’s care plan documentation. This ensured that people’s documentation was reflective of their current support needs. The provider sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff to improve service provision.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.