Loading
UR Care Solutions is a homecare service registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the assessment there were 2 people using the service. The inspection was prompted due to concerns around employment practices at the service. The assessment commenced on 12 August 2025 and concluded on 11 December 2025. This was the first assessment of a newly registered service. At this assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to the failure to assess and mitigate risk, the failure to follow safe recruitment practices, the failure to effectively govern the service and maintain accurate care records. The were also in breach of the legal regulation to ensure they provide an up-to-date statement of purpose document to CQC. We are addressing this matter outside of this assessment. We found widespread and significant shortfalls across all areas of care. People were placed at risk of harm because the provider failed to meet fundamental standards of quality and safety. People were not protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments were incomplete and contradictory, and staff did not have the skills or experience to deliver safe care. Medicines were not managed safely, infection control measures were limited, and safeguarding processes were poorly understood. Recruitment practices were unsafe. These failings breached legal requirements for safe care and treatment and for employing fit and proper persons. Care was not effective. Pre-admission assessments lacked detail, care plans were inaccurate, and reviews were not carried out. There was no evidence of multidisciplinary working provided. Consent to care was poorly understood by the registered manager, and records showed inconsistencies in care delivery. People’s rights and choices were not respected. We were unable to gather feedback from people using the service. Care plans lacked information about dignity and person-centred care. The registered manager did not demonstrate compassion during discussions, and there was no evidence that independence or choice was promoted. Care was not responsive to people’s needs. Records were contradictory and failed to reflect cultural considerations or continuity of care. Feedback mechanisms were ineffective, and there was no planning for future or end-of-life care. Leadership and governance were inadequate. There was no shared vision, and leaders lacked knowledge of statutory requirements. Audits were absent, issues were not identified, and no evidence of continuous improvement was provided. The provider’s website and statement of purpose contained outdated and misleading information. These failings breached legal requirements for good governance.
npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-18444136616.