Unisus Group Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Regulation 9, Person-centred care. The provider did not ensure people received person centred care which reflected their preferences and met their needs.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People and relatives told us that sometimes staff were disengaged, rushed, or spent time on their personal phones during care visits. Some individuals felt their dignity was not upheld, particularly when unfamiliar staff attended or when communication was poor. One relative said, “99% of staff don't speak to [relative]; they sit on their phones, and they speak to each other in their own language which I really don't like.” Others told us that inconsistent staffing meant newer carers often did not interact with people or understand how to support them respectfully.

However, some people and their relatives described regular carers as kind, compassionate and respectful, taking time to talk with them and understand their preferences. One relative told us, “When they get it right, for example older, good carers coming consistently, it’s great.”

Care plans contained clear guidance for staff on how to maintain people’s dignity during care delivery. This included instructions such as placing towels appropriately to protect privacy, closing doors and curtains, and explaining to people what care was being provided.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People and relatives told us frequent changes in staff meant new carers often lacked familiarity with the people they supported. As a result, care was not always delivered in line with individuals’ established routines or preferences, and some people felt anxious or distressed when unfamiliar staff attended. One person told us, “The most upsetting thing, because I have personal care, was when they sent young, healthy men to do my care. That shows no respect for me or for them, so I wouldn't have a shower when these men came.”

Relatives told us new staff sometimes appeared fearful or disinterested in engaging with people and often required direct guidance from family members or the person using the service about what care they should be providing.

However, people explained that when regular and familiar carers were in place, they felt well supported and treated as individuals, and their care was delivered in a way that reflected their personal preferences and routines.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and relatives told us their requests for preferred carers, visit times and established routines were not always upheld. This reduced people’s sense of control and increased anxiety. One person said, “The company had asked me to nominate which staff I want, and I nominated 3 women I would prefer, but only one of them comes now.” They told us this made them feel very anxious about who would be attending their visits.

People’s personal care needs were assessed, identifying what they could do independently and providing staff with clear guidance on promoting independence. This included using prompting, positive reinforcement, safe supervision, and task breakdown, while actively involving the person in decisions about their care and daily routines.

The provider did not always listen to or fully understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

People raised concerns about the length of care visits and the punctuality of staff. Although the provider told people they would be informed if staff were running late, this did not happen consistently. One person said, “The carers came this morning after 9am; they're supposed to come before 8am, so I'm lying in bed waiting to get up.” Another told us, “Today, staff didn’t come until nearly 11 o’clock and I was waiting for my breakfast until then.”

Staff did not always respond promptly to people’s needs or act to reduce discomfort, concern or distress. A relative described how some staff did not manage their loved one’s care appropriately, leaving the family to step in. They said, “Staff do not always make sure that they have got juice.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

The registered manager explained about the processes they had put in place to support staff’s wellbeing. Staff had access to regular supervision and team meetings where they had the opportunity to raise concerns or share feedback. The provider also provided a free counselling service for staff to access. The service had a staff recognition, ‘Employee of the Month’, scheme in place.

People were supported by staff who felt valued by the management team. Comments included, “If I have something to say or want to give feedback on anything I simply talk to [quality and compliance manager] or [registered manager] to put my points and views across and I am always listened to and what I say is taken on board” and “The service is managed in the best way it can be, management tries their best to help and be supportive and open communication and leads us in the best way they can.”

There were appropriate arrangements in place to support staff to remain safe at work. There was a lone working policy in place to support with and ensure clear guidelines were available to staff that worked unsupervised.