Karrthikeya Health Care Limited

The assessment was prompted following concerns regarding unsafe recruitment. We identified 6 breaches of regulations. These were in relation to the need for consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to ensure the service was working within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Capacity assessments were either missing, incomplete, or not decision‑specific. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to understand whether people could consent, or whether decisions should be made in their best interests in line with the MCA.

The provider did not have effective systems in place for assessing and monitoring risks associated with service users’ conditions. Risks to people were not always identified and managed safely. The provider’s failed to ensure appropriate, accurate and consistent care plans and guidance were in place for staff to follow.

Service users were not protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff failed to recognise an act of abuse against a service user and neglected to raise a safeguarding alert with the registered manager or with the Local Authority. The service failed to have effective systems and processes in place to investigate, immediately upon becoming aware of, any allegation or evidence of such abuse.

Record keeping was poor throughout the service. When people needed their health needs monitoring for a certain condition care plans did not have information relating to the frequency of these checks, baseline measurements and action to be taken if checks were outside of the appropriate threshold levels. The service did not have the necessary systems, processes, or oversight required to ensure safe and compliant medicines administration.

The provider did not have quality assurance or governance systems in place to enable them to have robust oversight of the quality and safety of the care. Issues we had identified had not been recognised by the provider and registered manager. Policies belonged to other organisations, and the content did not relate to the service, important contact details were missing.

Staff did not receive appropriate support, professional development, supervision or appraisal as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform. The service did not operate a safe recruitment procedure. There was no documented evidence that the provider had assessed whether staff had the necessary qualifications, skills, and experience required for their roles. Appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were not conducted.

During the inspection, we found evidence indicating that people were at risk of harm due to these issues. We asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found. The information provided demonstrated the registered manager didn’t have an understanding of MCA and the requirements for the safe management of medicine. Documents supplied were dated following our on-site visit and lacked detail and were incomplete.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.