Unique Care Network Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. Improvements were not found at this assessment and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. Assessment findings identified concerns that reduced assurance the provider's values and vision were consistently embedded across the service. Care plans and risk assessments were not always person-centred, accurate or reflective of people's current needs, and governance systems had failed to identify and address these issues. The provider's audits and assurance reports did not provide an accurate picture of service performance and largely relied on repetitive assurances rather than meaningful evaluation and improvement planning. Leaders had not ensured there were effective systems in place to monitor practice, manage risks and drive improvement. As a result, leaders had not always established a culture that consistently promoted high-quality, safe and person-centred care or that risks to the delivery of the provider's vision were effectively identified, understood and addressed. However, relatives provided positive feedback about the care people received and spoke highly of staff. We also observed staff demonstrating caring and compassionate approaches when supporting people, reflecting a commitment to treating people with dignity and respect.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. During the assessment, we identified the registered manager application had not been progressed since December 2025, and issues with access to the provider portal had not been escalated or followed up. Leaders had also submitted monthly assurance reports to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which contained significant duplication of information and largely provided generic assurances rather than meaningful analysis of service performance, risks or improvement actions. In addition, provider audits lacked scrutiny and were not effective in identifying areas requiring improvement.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to speak openly with managers and were confident that concerns would be listened to and acted upon. Feedback from staff indicated they felt supported by management and able to challenge practice where necessary.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were aware of the provider's related policies and felt their views were listened to and respected. While assessment findings identified shortcomings in governance and oversight, there was no evidence to suggest staff were treated unfairly or that equality, diversity and inclusion were not promoted within the workforce.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Our assessment identified widespread governance failures across medicines management, care planning, risk management and quality assurance processes. Provider audits and monthly assurance reports submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) were largely repetitive and failed to identify concerns that were evident during the assessment. These included inaccurate PRN protocols, medication administration recording errors, incomplete staff medication competency assessments, missing body maps, inadequate risk assessments relating to flammable emollients, and care plans that lacked accurate and person-centred information. Medication audits had failed to identify repeated missed doses of prescribed medicines and recording discrepancies, reducing assurance that medicines were being managed safely. In addition, the provider's assurance reports repeatedly stated that robust auditing systems were embedded and effective; however, assessment findings demonstrated these systems were not operating effectively in practice. Collectively, these failings in governance arrangements and a lack of effective systems to identify, monitor and mitigate risks placed people at risk of receiving unsafe care and limited the provider's ability to drive and sustain improvement.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Opportunities to work in partnership were not always fully utilised. For example, there was no evidence that professional advice had been sought following repeated missed doses of prescribed medication, despite the potential risks to the person's health. In addition, care records did not always incorporate important information available from other sources, such as hospital passports, resulting in inconsistencies within care planning. These issues reduced assurance that information was consistently shared and used effectively to support safe, coordinated care and continuous improvement. However, there was evidence that staff worked with relatives and involved agencies and sought advice from healthcare professionals when required to support people's care and wellbeing.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Assessment findings showed that quality assurance systems were ineffective in identifying and addressing areas requiring improvement. Concerns relating to medicines management, care planning, risk assessments and record keeping had not been identified through the provider's own audits despite repeated assurances that robust monitoring systems were in place. Monthly assurance reports submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) provided limited evidence of reflection, analysis, learning or measurable improvement.