You are here

Archived: Jark Healthcare - Kings Lynn Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 15 June 2016

The inspection took place on 5 May 2016 and was announced.

Jark Healthcare - King's Lynn operates from an office in the centre of the town and provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, there were 12 people receiving services.

There was no registered manager in post in day-to-day charge of the service as required by the provider's registration conditions. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Although a manager remained registered on our database it was clear from discussions at the agency that the person had not fulfilled that role since April 2015. A new manager had been appointed and started work at the agency in February 2016 but was not yet registered.

People experienced a service that promoted their safety. They received assistance from sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs and to keep them safe. There were robust recruitment processes in operation, which contributed to protecting people from the employment of staff who were unsuitable to work in care. Staff were aware of their obligations to report any concerns that people may be being abused. Risks to people were assessed and there was guidance for staff about how they should minimise these risks while they were delivering care.

Staff were trained to administer medicines safely but there were few people using the service for whom they needed to assume this responsibility. The way that the competence of staff to administer medicines safely was assessed needed improvement and the manager had plans to address this.

The service was not wholly effective. Some training identified as required as part of people's care packages had not been provided and some guidance from a health professional had not been properly incorporated into a plan of care. This had not had an adverse effect on anyone at the time of the inspection but presented a potential risk that people's complex health needs may not be fully met by competent staff.

People received support from staff who were polite, respectful and kind. Staff were aware of the importance of promoting people's privacy, dignity and their independence as far as practicable. Staff were aware of people's individual needs and preferences for the way they wanted their care to be delivered. Staff also understood the importance of seeking people's permission before delivering personal care.

People and their relatives were confident that, if they had any concerns or complaints, the management team would take these seriously and respond to them.

Almost all of the staff had joined the service recently so had only worked with the current manager who they felt was supportive. They were well-motivated and enthusiastic about their work. However, frequent changes in management and leadership over the last year compromised the ability of the service to properly and robustly monitor the quality of the service people received, taking into account people's views.

The provider had failed to comply with the rules about events they needed to tell us about by law and had failed to provide us with required information about the service. Inconsistent arrangements for leading the service during 2015 may have contributed to these failings. We have told the provider that they must improve in this area.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas



Updated 15 June 2016

The service was safe.

Recruitment processes were robust and staff understood the importance of protecting people from abuse.

Risks to people's safety were assessed with guidance for staff about how to minimise these.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.

Where staff were involved in assisting people with medicines, they understood the importance of doing this as safely as possible.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

There was a potential risk that people would not receive prompt support to maintain good health.

People could not be sure that staff had received and understood all their training and so were competent to meet people's needs.

Staff sought people's consent to deliver care.



Updated 15 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

Staff respected and promoted people's privacy, dignity and independence.



Updated 15 June 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff understood people's individual needs and preferences and what was important to them.

People and their relatives were confident that any concerns or complaints they had would be properly addressed.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 June 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

The provider had not told us about events happening within the service that were required to be notified.

The service was without a registered manager in day to day charge of the service and had been so for over a year. Recent changes in the management structure had not had time to embed to demonstrate consistent leadership but some improvements were being made.

People and staff were confident that the manager would listen to their views about the service.