Unisus Group Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good.At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal Regulation 17, Good governance. The provider failed to ensure robust governance procedures were in place.

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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Although care plans were detailed and person centred, people’s lived experiences showed this approach was not consistently embedded in day-to-day practice. People and relatives told us the quality of person-centred care varied depending on which staff attended. Regular carers were described as knowledgeable and able to support people in ways that aligned with their preferences, routines and communication needs. However, newer or inexperienced staff did not always demonstrate the same understanding, which meant people were not always supported in a way that reflected their assessed needs or personal choices. One relative told us, “I have to show the staff how to wash [relative] and how to dry them properly. I have to show them how to dress them and put their straps on.” They explained that regular staff knew how to reassure and distract their loved one when they became agitated, but newer staff lacked the confidence or skills to do this.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People’s feedback showed inconsistencies in staffing and changes in who their delivered care, directly affected how well their assessed needs were met. One person told us, “Staff take [relative] out for shopping and seaside trips and engage in games and activities, and I appreciate how staff behave.” Another person told us, “On some occasions visits occur too close together, meaning meals and support are provided within a short period of time rather than being spaced appropriately throughout the day.”

Care plans evidenced the service worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals, including GPs and district nurses, to support people’s needs and ensure care was coordinated. A staff member told us, “I always collaborate with other care professionals such as the occupational therapist, doctors, nurses, nutritionist, and even family members to ensure that the clients gets the best possible care. Documenting my concerns and observations to allow for continuity.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Care plans detailed people’s communication needs. For example, where people used communication aids, care plans contained clear information to guide staff on how to support people to communicate effectively.

People received a welcome letter when they first started using the service. A ‘client handbook’ was also provided, which included information about the service and what people could expect. This outlined the aims and values of Unisus Group Limited.

The registered manager said information would be made available in different formats so people could have access to the information if required.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Formal mechanisms for gathering feedback were not consistently embedded. While some people reported previously receiving questionnaires, others said they had not been asked for feedback at all. People told us feedback was predominantly gathered informally, most often through telephone contact.

The most recent survey, completed in 2024, identified some of the issues raised during our assessment, and actions were put in place. However, a follow-up survey had not been conducted in 2025 to evaluate whether these actions had been effective.

People told us feedback was not always acted upon or followed up, particularly in relation to concerns about staffing and care errors. This reduced people’s confidence that their views were listened to or used to drive improvement. Comments included, “The company used to ask for feedback, but they no longer do so” and “The company have never asked for any feedback as to how the care is going. We were meant to have a yearly review recently. I’d booked an appointment for them to come out but no one from the company turned up. When I phoned the office, they said that they were really busy.”

People reported they were generally aware of how to make complaints; however, they experienced delayed responses, inconsistent follow-up, and, in some cases, a lack of action, which reduced confidence in the system. Many complaints related to staff competence, late and missed visits, and issues with care. While these concerns sometimes led to temporary improvements, people noted that issues often recurred.

One person described raising multiple serious concerns, including safety incidents, but felt that the provider’s response was inconsistent, with temporary improvements followed by a decline in standards. They said, “I do tell the company about this, but as far as I'm aware they have done nothing.”

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Although systems were in place to monitor call times and respond to late or missed visits, these systems were not consistently effective in practice. People reported occasions where visits were delayed or missed, which caused distress, delays in medication, and, at times, unsafe practices during personal care.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Although 1 of the provider’s stated objectives was to ensure all people receive care free from discrimination, with equal rights and opportunities, this was not always achieved in practice. While some staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s cultural, social and personal backgrounds, this was inconsistent. People told us that when staff knew their routines, humour, preferences and cultural values, the support felt more personalised and meaningful. However, there were shortfalls in cultural awareness and communication, particularly among newer or less experienced staff, or those who faced language barriers. These staff sometimes struggled to engage effectively, which affected people’s confidence and overall experience of care. This contributed to inequitable outcomes, as not everyone received care that fully reflected their individual characteristics, backgrounds or protected characteristics.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans included an Advance Statement, which outlined their wishes, preferences, values, and beliefs about their care and support.