Karrthikeya Health Care 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

Responsive – 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 Inadequate.This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment, and governance.

This service scored 25 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had no records of an initial assessment of people’s care and support needs taking place. Care plans contained inaccurate information and did not reflect people’s current care needs and health conditions. People and relatives were not routinely offered opportunities to review the care and support in place. Care plans were not person centred and did not outline how people preferred to be supported.

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

The provider did not ensure people received joined up care and support. The registered manager could not demonstrate that they worked with healthcare professionals. It was only after we raised concerns about people’s support needs and requested an action plan the service contacted the person’s GP for guidance.

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

Care records did not reflect people’s current health conditions and their support needs. People’s individual communication needs were not always gathered. Information was not provided in an accessible way. People’s whose first language was not English were not routinely provided with information in a format or language they could understand. There was no evidence of translated materials, interpreters, or alternative communication methods being offered to support their understanding of key information. This created a risk that people may not have fully understood their rights, care arrangements, or important decisions affecting them.

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 have systems to gather feedback from people, relatives and staff. The registered manager told us they speak with people and gain feedback during visits. The service could not provide records of these discussions.

A relative told us that if they had any problems they would talk to the carer and they would speak with the manager.

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

The provider did not have any processes or procedures to outline what people/staff should do in an emergency or out of hours. A business continuity plan was not in place to ensure people had continuity of care in an emergency. Following our request for an action plan the provider purchased a range of governance policies. The ‘Out of hours policy’ did not have the out of hours telephone number included and there was no evidence that staff had access to the policy.

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

The provider did not demonstrate that people’s protected characteristics were understood, considered, or used to tailor their care. Care plans did not reflect how the service identified or responded to individual needs relating to disability, culture, communication, or personal identity.

Staff had not received training in equality and diversity, and the service did not have any policies to support staff in recognising or addressing discrimination or inequitable practice. Following our request for an action plan the provider purchased a range of governance policies including equality and diversity.

People were not 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.

Discussions about people’s future wishes did not form part of the care plan structure. There was no evidence that people or relatives were involved in planning for the future, including end‑of‑life care. Staff had not completed end of life training.