Karrthikeya Health Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Inadequate.This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to staffing, and governance.

This service scored 29 (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 have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Regular team meetings did not take place within the service. As a result, staff were not kept up to date with important information about people using the service, changes in their needs, or updates relating to service policies and procedures.

The lack of structured communication meant staff did not have routine opportunities to discuss concerns, share learning, or receive guidance from management

The provider had no oversight of the service. Governance systems were not in place to ensure people received good quality care and support. The registered manager was unable to provide clear explanations of how they monitored the safety and quality of the service.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager lacked the skills, knowledge, and experience to lead effectively. They were unable to provide clear or accurate information about the service’s care processes, governance arrangements, or their own regulatory responsibilities.

Following our request for an action plan the provider purchased a range of governance policies, these did not contain important information for example named leads and contact numbers. The registered manager provided updated care plans and associated documents, these remained inadequate, lacked detail and had not been completed.

People did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The service does not have an effective structure or system in place for staff to raise concerns safely. The whistle‑blowing policy the service provided was a Manchester City Council document. Its content did not relate to the service, and it did not give staff the information they need to understand how to raise concerns within the organisation. The service had no records relating to concerns raised and action taken.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had no evidence to show staff were involved in all aspects of the service. Staff did not have access to team meetings, supervisions and were not asked for feedback. Staff we spoke with told us if they had an issue they would contact the registered manager.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service did not have systems and procedures to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service, including no oversight of medication, care plans, risk assessments and the service provided. Policies provided belonged to other organisations, and the content did not support the staff or relate to the service. The issues we identified had not been recognised.

The service did not have accurate, complete records.

The provider’s website advertised care services which the provider was not registered to deliver. After we raised this with the registered manager the website was updated to offer the correct services.

Records were not maintained securely. Two General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) incidents occurred during the inspection, where peoples and staff’s data had been disclosed via a third party who should not have had access to the information.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider had not established effective working relationships with health and social care partners. No evidence was presented to demonstrate any collaborative efforts to enhance the quality or safety of the service.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had no systems or processes to learn when things went wrong. Staff did not have the opportunities to speak up with ideas for improvement. The service had not developed external relationships to support improvement and innovation. Discussions with the registered manager, while on site and during the inspection, demonstrated there was a lack of understanding and knowledge to make the necessary improvements needed to meet the minimum fundamental standards of care provision for people.