Continuity Health Care Services PVT Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us most staff were kind, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff generally took time to speak with people, offered reassurance and supported them in a compassionate manner. People’s comments included, “They are friendly and treat me almost like a family member. We have a good relationship and have a joke whilst care is going on. It’s not silent. You feel valued and care for.” However, at times, this was dependent on the time staff had to complete their calls. People told us staff were often late or appeared rushed, which impacted their overall experience and the quality of interactions they received. This meant people did not always experience consistently caring and unhurried support.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider did not always ensure people were treated as individuals. Care records lacked sufficient detail for staff to understand people’s religious, cultural or personal preferences, and although diagnoses of health needs were recorded, information relating to people’s protected characteristics was often missing. This meant staff did not always have the guidance they needed to deliver fully personalised care. However, people told us staff engaged well with them and respected their preferences in practice. One person told us, “I only have women carers. I didn’t want a gentleman in the morning to wash me or at night to put me to bed. That’s been respected.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider did not always support people to have independence, choice or control over their care. People and their relatives told us their preferences for call times were not always respected, and visits frequently took place much earlier or later than agreed. One person’s bedtime call was regularly carried out two hours early. This impacted their wellbeing and dignity and at times caused distress the following day. The persons relative told us, “The carer turned up at 5.30pm instead of 8.00pm. to put [person] to bed. They go to bed at 8.00pm and 5.30pm is too early. I spoke to the registered manager, and they said they will sort it out. It’s important they come later and shut the house down. It’s happened quite a lot recently. I’ve had calls from [person] in the middle of the night as they get up worried as they are out of routine” Others told us staff arrived very early for morning and evening visits, which had a significant negative impact on their routines, needs and expectations.

People told us these inconsistencies left them unable to plan their day and reduced their ability to make meaningful choices about how and when they received support. Some people also reported feeling rushed during visits, which further limited their independence. These shortfalls demonstrated a failure to provide person‑centred care which upheld people’s rights to choice, control and dignity.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The provider did not always ensure people’s immediate needs were responded to in a timely or consistent way. People told us many staff were attentive and tried to respond quickly when support was required, this was not always possible due to delays, missed calls or carers being rushed. Some people said they had to wait longer than expected for assistance with essential tasks such as personal care, meals or medication, which caused anxiety and discomfort. A person told us, “I raised an issue about late visits. No change has happened. It would be nice to have some consistency”

Relatives also reported occasions where staff did not have enough time during visits to fully meet people’s immediate needs or provide reassurance when people required it. These inconsistencies meant people did not always experience responsive, person‑centred care at the time they needed it.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff; they did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and said the management team worked with them to promote a positive work–life balance. Staff described managers as approachable and willing to listen, and many felt able to raise concerns or request support when needed. However, the provider did not always enable staff to deliver person‑centred care. Staff told us time pressures, inconsistent scheduling and late changes to rotas sometimes left them unable to provide unhurried, individualised support. This affected their ability to meet people’s preferences and respond to their needs in a meaningful way. As a result, despite feeling supported personally, staff were not always equipped or enabled to deliver consistently person‑centred care.