UBU - Harrogate

The service provided good quality, person-centred care which met people’s needs and preferences. People were supported to make choices, develop independence and achieve meaningful outcomes, including building confidence and skills. Staff were safely recruited, appropriately trained and supervised. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Care planning and support were highly individualised, with detailed assessments focusing on people’s strengths, preferences, communication needs and ambitions. Staff showed a good understanding of people's needs and delivered support in ways that promoted dignity, choice and independence.

The provider demonstrated commitment to safety, learning and continuous improvement. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and worked proactively to manage risks while supporting people to live fulfilling lives. Staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals. There was good communication within teams and positive approaches to reducing restrictive practices. Staff supported people to ensure their homes were clean, personalised and well-maintained.

While appropriate action was generally taken to keep people safe, aspects of record keeping were sometimes inconsistent, including incident reporting, post-incident reviews and some safeguarding documentation. Medicines systems were mostly safe, but there were gaps in medication recording, inconsistencies between documents and insufficient detail in some protocols for medicines prescribed 'as required'. Auditing processes had not always identified these issues before the assessment. The provider took prompt action to address this.

Overall, the provider had a positive, open and inclusive culture led by approachable and knowledgeable managers. There were two managers registered with CQC due to the size and geographical scope of the service. They worked alongside a senior management team and local team leaders. Staff felt valued and well supported. Although improvements were needed to strengthen governance systems and aspects of record keeping, the provider was responsive to feedback, worked collaboratively with external partners and remained focused on achieving positive outcomes and a good quality of life for people.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The provider was working in line with these principles.