Karrthikeya Health Care 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

Caring – 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 Inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

This service scored 35 (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. Observations of staff did not take place to ensure they provided kind and dignified care.

The service did not ensure staff members were fully informed about people’s choices and support needs. Care plans were inaccurate and did not reflect people’s current care and support needs. Information about people’s personal history, backgrounds and goals was not included in care plans. Staff had limited knowledge about people they supported, they could not tell us about people’s life histories, likes and interests.

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.

Care records lacked detail and did not outline how staff were to support people in a person-centred way. Care plans did not contain information about all the protected characteristics.

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

Staff were unable to tell us how they supported people in making choices regarding their care and support and daily activities. The registered manager failed to obtain evidence to establish if legal authorisation Lasting Power of Attorney was in place. Without confirmation of who could lawfully act on a person’s behalf, decisions may not have reflected their wishes or protected their rights, undermining respectful and person‑centred care.

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

Staff were unable to describe situations where people may require urgent assistance, demonstrating gaps in their understanding of when to respond to escalating risks. Care plans did not contain sufficient baseline health information or monitoring guidance to support staff in identifying early signs of deterioration, this increased the risk that changes in a person’s health could go unrecognised.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were not given the opportunity to provide feedback about the service or their working practises. Team meetings were not conducted, and supervisions and appraisals had not taken place.

Policies intended to support staff in the workplace, including those covering infection prevention and control (IPC) and whistleblowing did not belong to the service and were taken from other organisations. As a result, they did not reflect the service’s operational practices, risks, or governance arrangements, and therefore did not provide staff with accurate, service‑specific guidance.