CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Unity House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine management, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood safeguarding. They were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used effectively and safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Inspectors did observe kind and compassionate interactions, but no current Caring rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. No current Responsive rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management oversight, action plans for improvements, open reporting of incidents and a positive, person-centred culture.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and stronger staffing and management, but some assessment and PPE systems still needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection over four dates in February and March 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable safeguarding arrangements and managers who monitored incidents and planned improvements.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. However, this inspection only checked Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Enough staff
The provider had permanently increased day and night staffing levels. This addressed earlier problems with flexibility, community support and staff breaks.
“The provider had permanently increased both day and night shift staffing levels to resolve these issues.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored, given and destroyed safely. Staff also followed principles intended to avoid excessive use of medicines.
“People's medicines were appropriately managed.” from the report
Kind and safe care
People said they felt safe. Inspectors saw staff interact with people in a kind and compassionate way.
“People said they felt safe. We observed staff interact with people in a kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Managers reviewed incidents, monitored action plans and involved relevant organisations when needed. People and families were involved in discussions about care and support.
“The registered manager and provider maintained clear oversight of the service.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Staff focused on people's wishes, needs and rights. The home worked with local community and other agencies to support people's opportunities and wellbeing.
“The registered manager promoted a positive, person-centred culture.” from the report
Assessment tool still developing
needs fixingThe provider recognised that its electronic assessment tool did not yet fully cover people's needs. Ask what has been changed since the inspection.
“The provider understood the new electronic assessment tool required further enhancement to ensure it fully covered people's needs.” from the report
PPE checks
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used effectively and safely. Ask how this is monitored now.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the electronic assessment tool so that it fully covers each person's needs?
- 02How do managers now check that PPE is being used effectively and safely?
- 03How do the increased day and night staffing levels support flexible help and activities in the community?
- 04How are incidents reviewed and turned into changes in people's care?
- 05How are people and their families involved in discussions about care and support needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and calming support, but care records, staffing flexibility and management still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on four dates in July and August 2021. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home had improved infection control and management systems since the previous inspection. People were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, and the environment and equipment were safe and well maintained.
Inspectors found that some risk assessments and support plans lacked enough detail or were not always up to date. Staffing had been increased because the previous staffing model was not flexible enough. Person-centred care and independence were not yet consistent.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three ratings were not assessed during this visit and carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Calm support
Staff supported people effectively when they became distressed and created a calm atmosphere. Communication with people was effective.
“Throughout our visit we found staff work effectively with people to support them regulate their emotions and they created a very calming atmosphere.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse or harm. The home had effective safeguarding systems.
“The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were safely received, stored, given and disposed of. Staff had been trained and assessed as competent.
“People's medicines were appropriately managed. Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and destroyed.” from the report
Infection control
The home had improved its infection control arrangements and staff had training in using protective equipment.
“People were protected from the risk of infection.” from the report
Improvement work
The provider had strengthened audits and used action plans to monitor improvements. External professionals reported that staff were willing to engage with this work.
“Audits had been strengthened, quality of care records reviewed, and staff were supported to carry out their roles.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not cover all risks in enough detail. The report gave the example of information about ligature cutters and who was trained to use them.
“At times these needed to be more detailed and cover all risks.” from the report
Staffing flexibility and agency use
needs fixingThe previous staffing model did not allow enough flexibility for community support, staff rotation or breaks. Staffing levels were increased, but staff reported that a lot of agency staff were still used.
“Staff reported they worked well as a team, but a lot of agency were used.” from the report
Leadership arrangements
needs fixingThere had been no registered manager for over a year. The recently appointed manager had not yet applied to become registered and was still learning some systems and audits.
“There has not been a registered manager in post for over a year and the provider needed to ensure the new manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Person-centred outcomes
needs fixingPerson-centred care was not fully embedded. Outcomes for independence and empowerment were inconsistent, so inspectors made a recommendation for improvement.
“Person-centred care was not however fully embedded into practice and outcomes for people's independence and empowerment were at times inconsistent.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person's risk assessment and positive behaviour support plan is current and contains enough detail?
- 02What changes have the increased day and night staffing levels made in practice?
- 03How much agency staff are currently being used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 04What is the progress on the manager applying to become registered with the CQC?
- 05How are you improving independence, empowerment and person-centred outcomes for residents?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Unity House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 April 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.