Unite Highland Care Limited

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At this assessment we identified that the provider had improved systems and processes to keep people safe. There were some areas that improvements were still needed, such as medicines management, and ensuring that care plans and risk assessments contained sufficient person-centred guidance. However, other areas had improved including safeguarding processes, the safe allocation and recruitment of staff and infection prevention and control strategies.

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. At our last assessment we did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question. At this assessment, we did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question.

We found that people’s capacity to consent to care and treatment had been assessed. Staff understood the need to seek people’s capacity to ensure people were empowered and able to make the decisions about their care and support that they were able to. Since our last assessment the provider had reviewed people’s care and support needs. People were actively involved in reviews and relatives told us they were happy with the way their loved ones needs were assessed.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question. At this assessment, we did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question.

We received positive feedback from people and their loved ones about the care they received. People told us they were not rushed when care was provided, and that staff had time to sit and chat with them. People and their relatives told us they were treated with kindness and compassion and one relative told us, “They know how to make him laugh.” People told us staff were friendly and provided care in a dignified way. One relative said, “They’re treated with dignity.”

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question. At this assessment, we did not assess enough quality statements to rate this key question.

Although there were still some areas where care plans and guidance could be enhanced, the provider had improved this following our last assessment. People told us they received care in a person-centred way, specific to their needs. People’s protected characteristics were now considered and staff supported people to ensure they could access services.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

At this assessment we found that the provider had made some improvements, and was in the process of ensuring the systems and processes implemented were effective and sustainable. The provider told us there were areas of the service they were looking to improve further. Staff told us the culture of the service had improved, and that their concerns were listened to. The provider had worked with other organisations to learn and improve the service. There were now systems in place to learn and improve