UK Specialist Care Ltd

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 service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives told us they were involved in the decisions regarding their relative’s care and support. Comments included, “The family help with that, but [person] is involved.” and “Yes, sometimes [involved in decisions], nothing really changes, if something had to be different, yes we are always here.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s support needs and preferences however, the provider had not ensured people’s care was person-centred. Care plans were not regularly reviewed or adequately personalised to reflect what was important to them. The language used in people’s care records did not provide sufficient details about how people liked to be supported and lacked detail regarding their personal information and preferences.

Relatives told us their relatives received continuity of care from staff who they were familiar with and knew their individual care needs and daily routines.

Staff were familiar with the needs of the people they supported.

People received continuity of care from the same care staff, who they knew well and understood their needs well.

People were not provided with information that was presented in a way that was easy for them to understand. Feedback from relatives included, “It’s in normal print. [Person] has a problem reading anyway, vision is impaired and requires glasses to read small print. Information comes in documentary form. We would read it to [person] if needed” and “They don’t supply any information. [Person] would tire from reading a lot of information and trying to understand it.” Relatives also raised concerns that there was a lack of communication from the provider.

Staff knew people and their relatives well and knew of their communication needs.

The provider did not supply information to people in formats tailored to their individual needs. Care plans lacked detailed information of people’s communication support needs and the steps staff needed to take to support people.

We received mixed reviews from relatives on whether the provider sought their views about the care they received. A relative told us they were not asked to provide feedback. Another relative told us, “Yes, they have yes. I can’t remember the last time, but we have given feedback yes.”

The registered manager told us they knew people and their families well and received feedback via surveys and telephone monitoring.

The provider had processes in place to retrieve feedback from people and their families to learn what they did well or what could be improved, this however was not completed on a regular basis. The provider used telephone monitoring calls to check if people were happy with their care and support. We requested copies of the notes from the monitoring calls, but this was not received. The provider had a clear complaints procedure and had not received any complaints within the last year, people received a copy of the complaints policy in their service user guides.

People could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We received positive feedback from relatives regarding the care workers and the support people received.

Staff had the right skills and experience to support people and meet people’s needs.

People had regular care workers who knew them well and understood their health care needs.

People’s relatives told us they supported their family member with activities and access to the community outside of the home.

No feedback received.

People’s support plans lacked detail, it did not detail information about people’s individual wishes and preferences in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training which helped them to understand discriminatory behaviours and practices.

No one being supported was nearing the end of their life, so this had not been necessary to plan for.

No feedback received because people using the service were not nearing the end of their life.

No feedback received.