UK Specialist Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good.

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff knew how to support their family in line with their assessed needs.

Staff knew people well and helped to ensure people received care and support that met their needs.

The registered manager told us they reviewed care plans and risk assessments every six months or if there were any changes to people's needs. We did not see any evidence of care plans and risk assessments being reviewed regularly.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s care needs were assessed prior to them receiving support. However, this information lacked detail about their health needs and support preferences. People’s care documentation had not always been reviewed to ensure it remained up to date and accurately reflected their current needs. People’s assessments were not always sufficiently detailed to enable effective, safe, good quality care planning. We found a person’s care plan lacked sufficient information around the risk of aspiration. The care plan did not detail how food should be prepared, the signs staff should look out for, how staff should support them if they are choking or what staff should they do if they have concerns. Staff had not received training in aspiration.

Relatives People told us staff provided them with all the care and support they needed.

Staff followed best practice when supporting people.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and support with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care plans lacked detail and were not written in a personalised manner with people preferences for how and when they preferred to receive their support. The provider did not complete regular reviews of care plans with people or their relative’s involvement to ensure care was well coordinated and provided in line with their assessed needs and wishes.

People were generally supported by their relative's in relation to their health needs and health

Managers and staff told us they worked closely together. Staff told us they communicated with one another through a what’s app groups and group meetings. The registered manager worked closely with the local authority to keep up to date with what’s happening within the local community. We were told, “I attend managers meetings with the local authority, these happen monthly so I know what's going on locally.”

The provider worked well with the team and ensured communication was regular with team meetings and smart phone communication. Team meeting minutes showed staff shared care quality improvements and people’s feedback.

People were generally supported by relatives to access health appointments, rather than supported by staff.

Staff received training in how to meet and appropriately manage people’s health care needs and conditions, for example diabetes awareness.

Care plans detailed GP and healthcare professionals who were involved in people’s care.

We received mixed reviews from relatives whether the provider sought their feedback regarding the service and care staff.

Staff told us the management team conducted unannounced spot checks a staff member said, “Yes, care coordinator completed a spot check recently a couple of weeks ago, they come unannounced check client is happy/check the house is clean and talk to us. Check cupboards.”

Processes were basic and not always effective. For example, unannounced spot checks were made to review care and retrieve feedback from people, but the information was limited and not detailed. The spot check form did not identify follow up action or monitoring. This did not give a clear portrayal of the person or ensure effective monitoring. There were systems to gain people’s feedback about the service, but these were not consistently used. This did not enable ongoing development and improvement of the service.

We received mixed feedback whether people consented to care and treatment. Comments from relatives when asked if staff explained what they were doing and asked if people were happy for the care included, “Yes, they would, yes. It’s a fairly regular type of care [person] receives, so nothing left of field [person] would be expecting not to happen so generally speaking they do yes. [person]does have really good carers, so I have no concerns about that.” Another relative told us, “Not really, they just get on with it, it’s a chore in a way, they get in and do practical work, nobody is perfect I know.”

Staff did not provide feedback.

The provider received mandatory Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. At the time of our assessment the provider wasn’t supporting people who lacked capacity.