You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

This inspection of Kharis Healthcare Ltd took place between 27 July 2018 and 7 August 2018. Our visit to the office was announced to make sure the registered manager was available.

This is the first inspection of this service. They were first registered with us, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), on 13 April 2016.

Kharis Healthcare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of our visit three people were using the service.

Not everyone using Kharis Healthcare Ltd receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager at this agency who was supported by three care staff. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff knew how to respond to possible harm and how to reduce risks to people. Risks to people were assessed and action taken to reduce these. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were administered safely. Staff used personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection to people. There were systems in place to make sure lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. People received support with meals, if this was needed. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

There was enough information for staff to contact health care professionals if needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them. People’s personal and health care needs were met although not all care records were updated with changes to guide staff in how to do this.

A complaints system was in place and there was information available so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns. Staff had guidance to care for people at the end of their lives if this became necessary.

The provider’s monitoring process looked at systems relating to the care of people. People’s views were regularly sought so that action could be taken to improve the agency if needed. The agency was run by a family group, who all knew and cared for people, and updated them with any changes.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was safe.

Medicine administration records were accurately completed and medicines were given as prescribed.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm. Staff assessed risks to protect people from harm and followed infection control practices to reduce the risk of cross infection.

There were enough staff, who had undergone recruitment checks, available to meet people�s care needs.

There were systems in place to learn lessons from accidents and incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was effective.

Systems were in place to make sure people�s care and support was provided in line with good practice guidance.

Staff members received enough training to provide people with the care they required. They supported people to continue making decisions for themselves.

People were supported to eat and drink as independently as possible.

Staff worked with health care professionals to ensure people�s health care needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was caring.

Staff members developed good relationships with people using the service and their relatives, which ensured people received the care they needed.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and people�s preferences were always respected.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People had their individual care needs planned for, although care records were not always updated when their needs changed.

People had information if they wished to complain. There were procedures to investigate and respond to these.

Guidance was available for staff about how to care for people at the end of life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was not always well led.

The quality and safety of the care provided was not always effectively monitored to drive improvement.

People�s views about the agency were obtained and action was taken to address issues.

There was a good working relationship between staff members and people.

Staff contacted other organisations appropriately to report issues and provide joined-up care to people.