Unique Personnel (UK) Limited - Waltham Forest

The assessment was carried out by 2 inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. As part of our assessment, we spoke with the registered manager, office staff, 20 people and their relatives, 9 care workers and 3 external professionals.

At this assessment we looked at 33 quality statements across our 5 key questions. This is the first assessment of this service. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice before the assessment. This was because we wanted to make sure someone would be available to support us with the assessment.

The provider did not always protect people from the risk of abuse. The provider did not report concerns about people’s finances to the relevant external agencies when they occurred. Care visits assessed as requiring 2 care workers were not always delivered that way. Records did not always accurately show when care workers arrived or left. Care workers did not always record medicines they administered at the time of the care visits, so the provider could not be assured people received their medicines safely. Care plans did not always contain accurate and personalised information. The provider did not always record how decisions about people’s capacity to make decisions about their care were made. The provider’s governance systems did not always identify or effectively address risks relating to care delivery, medicines and safeguarding.

However, people and their relatives were generally positive about care and described care workers as kind, patient and reliable. People told us their regular care workers knew them well and understood what mattered to them. The provider worked well with healthcare professionals to support people with complex needs. Care workers were recruited safely and received regular supervision and support.

We found 2 breaches of the legal regulations. The provider was in breach of the regulation relating to safeguarding because concerns about potential financial abuse were not referred appropriately when they occurred. The provider was in breach of the regulation relating to good governance because systems did not effectively identify, monitor and address risks and areas requiring improvement.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.