Continuity Health Care Services PVT Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 46 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not always receive care which was fully person‑centred or tailored to their individual needs and preferences. While some care plans contained personal details about how people wished to be supported, others lacked meaningful information about routines, cultural or religious needs, communication preferences, or what mattered most to the person. This meant staff did not always have the guidance they needed to deliver truly personalised care.

Several people told us staff were kind but did not always have enough time during visits to support them in the way they preferred, and records showed tasks were sometimes prioritised over individual choice.

Opportunities to involve people and their families in shaping their care plans were inconsistent, and reviews did not always reflect changes in people’s needs or preferences.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People did not always experience consistent, well‑coordinated care. Visit times varied and were not always aligned with people’s assessed needs or preferences, and several people told us they were unsure which staff member would be attending their calls. This affected continuity and made it difficult for people to build trusting relationships with a regular team of carers.

Information sharing between staff and with external professionals was inconsistent. Care plans did not always contain up‑to‑date information from health or social care partners, and staff were not always informed promptly when people’s needs changed. This meant opportunities to provide integrated, joined‑up support were sometimes missed.

Although the provider had systems intended to improve continuity and coordination, these were not reliably implemented. As a result, people’s experiences of care provision and integration varied, and improvements were not yet embedded across the service.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs.

People using the service and their relatives did not always receive clear, timely or accessible information about their care, support or changes to their visits. Some people told us they were unsure who would be attending their calls, what time staff would arrive, or how to contact the office outside of core hours.

Care plans and visit schedules were not always shared in formats which met people’s communication needs. For example, easy-read versions, large print, or translated materials were not routinely available. This meant some people could not fully understand or be involved in decisions about their care.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not ensure people were listened to or meaningfully involved in decisions about their care. People and their relatives told us their concerns were often not acted upon, and feedback about call times, staffing consistency and the quality of care was repeatedly overlooked.

The provider had a complaints policy in place; however, our review of the complaints log showed that not all complaints had been followed up with the people who raised them. This meant the provider could not be assured that concerns were resolved appropriately or that people were satisfied with the outcome. The lack of consistent follow‑up also limited opportunities to learn from complaints and improve the quality and safety of the service.

People told us they had not always received a response to the complaints they raised, and many reported they had not seen any changes or improvements as a result of their feedback.

People reported carers were late by more than half an hour and, in some cases, by one to two hours. In rare cases, staff failed to attend visits altogether. Calls to the office to resolve these issues had usually not made a difference, despite complaints being made. People were not consistently informed when delays or problems occurred, leaving them anxious and unsure when support would arrive. Two people said they were considering changing agency as a result. These failings meant people were not empowered to influence their care, and the service did not respond to their needs in a timely, reliable or person‑centred way.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service does not consistently ensure equitable access to care for all people who may need support. The provider had recently accepted an increased number of referrals for people requiring support following discharge from hospital. However, there had been limited development of staff training and support to ensure staff teams were confident and competent to manage people’s more complex health needs. This created a risk of inequitable access for people whose needs required enhanced skills or clinical oversight.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People did not always experience equitable outcomes from the care and support they received. We found variation in the quality and consistency of people’s experiences depending on their location, the complexity of their needs, and the staff team providing their care. People with higher support needs, including those requiring support with communication or complex health conditions, did not always receive care which fully reflected what mattered most to them.

Some people told us they experienced missed or late visits more frequently than others, and records showed people who required multiple calls or specific visit times were disproportionately affected. Care plans did not always capture personal preferences in enough detail to ensure staff could deliver care in a way which promoted positive and consistent outcomes.

The provider did not routinely analyse patterns in complaints, incidents, or feedback to identify whether particular groups of people were experiencing poorer outcomes. This limited their ability to recognise inequalities and take targeted action to address them.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service did not consistently support people to plan for their future care in a person‑centred way. End‑of‑life care planning contained limited information and did not reflect people’s individual wishes, values or preferences. Plans focused mainly on who to contact in the event of death, rather than providing clear guidance on how the person wished to be supported at the end of their life. This meant staff did not have the information they needed to deliver compassionate, personalised care aligned with what mattered most to each individual.

Opportunities to explore people’s choices at an earlier stage were often missed. As a result, planning for the future was not embedded or consistently applied across the service.