Unicorn Healthcare Services

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

People’s support plans did not fully reflect their physical, emotional, mental and social needs. Services were not joined up and the provider lacked knowledge of people’s care and treatment. Information was not always provided to people in a way they understood. People and their families were not always given the opportunity to give feedback about their care, any feedback received was not used to improve the quality of the service. People were not given the opportunity to express their wishes about end of life care and future care preferences was not reflected in support plans

This service scored 39 (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 did not always work well together, and support plans did not give new carers the direction required to support them in a person-centred way. Comments included, “When they send different carers, they don’t know what to do as it is not in my support plan, I have to tell them what I want all the time, it is like I am training the staff, and “There is no introduction of new carers and I have to tell them what to do.”

Support plans were not always reviewed and did not always identify people’s current needs. Some staff were unclear how to involve people and their families to ensure care was person centred. Other staff said support plans were not written in a person-centred way and did not give staff guidance which identified all people’s current needs to enable them to be cared for the way they wanted.

People were involved in their initial assessment, however that did not progress to any other involvement regarding support plans and risk assessments. Staff were not supported to meet each other in team meetings, so did not always work well together. People told us if their regular carer was on holiday or absent the provider did not always provide other carers for the call and they went without support until their carer returned.

Staff told us they had not met most members of their team, and they received no feedback from the management team about changes in people’s care.

Partners were working with the service to improve the continuity of care and there was an action plan in place.

Care was not always co-ordinated and responsive. The management team did not attend regular update meetings with other professionals about people’s care and any changes that may have occurred. This meant staff and the management were not regularly updated in regard to people’s assessed needs.

People told us staff provided information to them if they asked for it. However, information in support plans was not always tailored to people’s individual needs.

Staff told us reasonable adjustments were made to people who required moving and handling, staff also told us they would provide information to people in a way they understood, however when the inspector made calls to some staff, they found some staff had difficulty understanding the questions and providing answers.

Information about people’s health and wellbeing was not always kept secure. The provider was aware of this and was taking the necessary steps to ensure they worked in line with the General Data protection regulation (GDPR).

If people or their relatives needed to complain they knew how to complain and who to complain too.

Staff told us they did not get any feedback when people had complained, and no lessons learned were shared with them if people or their relatives had complained.

The provider had a complaints policy and a tracker for complaints, however, there was no analysis of complaints to identify themes and trends, and no lessons learned from complaints.

People had the right equipment they needed to support them; however, their support plan and risk assessment did not detail their preferences of how they would like to be supported.

Staff told us support plans did not include any protected characteristics or support them in making any reasonable adjustments. However, staff we spoke to knew people well and would always ask them how they wanted to be supported.

Professionals working with the service told us some people had regular carers who knew them well and understood their health care needs

People with specific health needs did not have robust assessments in place of all the risks associated to ensure they received the right support.

Accurate records were not maintained for people. We found gaps in people’s care records which meant the provider could not be assured reasonable adjustments were made for people to support equity in experiences and outcomes.

Staff told us support plans did not include any protected characteristics or support them in making any reasonable adjustments. However, staff we spoke to knew people well and would always ask them how they wanted to be supported.

The provider did not have a process in place to consider people’s assessed needs to be sure they were being supported in the least restrictive way. Documentation was not always reviewed to ensure the right authorities were aware of concerns raised about disadvantaged groups of people.

At the time of our assessment no one was receiving end of life care.

Staff we spoke to told us they did not support anyone who was on end-of-life support.

The provider did not have a process in place to support people to plan for their future. However, at the time of our assessment no one was receiving end of life care.