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

We assessed 1 quality statement in the well led question and identified 1 breach of regulation. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. The assessment of these areas indicated ongoing areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains requires improvement. The provider’s audits and checks of the quality of care and other aspects of the service were not effective and had not identified the shortfalls we found during our assessment.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The registered manager told us they regularly visited people to check on the quality of the service being provided. However, there were no records to support this. Staff told us they understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported by the management team. Staff confirmed they had team meetings to seek guidance and advice on delivery of care.

Quality assurance systems were not effective. Improvements made at the previous inspections have not been embedded and sustained. The provider has consistently been rated requires improvement or inadequate following the last 6 consecutive inspections. Although audits were in place these were not robust to identify the shortfalls we found. For example, audits completed on the medication records and recruitment files did not identify the gaps we found. Audits of care records and risk assessments did not identify they were not always accurate with people’s current needs and person centred to guide staff when providing support. Registered manager/provider audits were not completed to maintain oversight of the service and to check audits and records completed by other delegated staff. This meant shortfalls were not identified and records such as incidents were not checked and signed off by senior management and action taken to reduce risks. There was also no oversight to ensure reportable incidents were submitted to CQC in a timely manner. The provider was not working in accordance with best practice guidance in relation to fundamental principles of Supported living. There was a room in the bungalow that was being used as an office and there were staff notice boards displayed on the walls. People shared communal areas with people they had not invited into their home. There was no evidence to support people had been consulted about this in their home.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.