Holistic Care UK

The provider and the registered manager are the same individual. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service operates.

We were only able to speak to 1 relative, 2 members of care staff and the registered manager. We reviewed 2 people’s care records, and we looked at 4 staff files in relation to recruitment and supervision. We also looked at policies and procedures and records related to the management of the service.

The inspection was carried out because of the length of time since our last inspection in 2014. The last rating for this service was ‘Meeting the Standards’ in Respecting and involving people who use services, Welfare of people who use services, Safeguarding people who use services from abuse, Requirements relating to workers and assessing and monitoring the quality-of-service provision. Following this comprehensive inspection the overall rating for the service is Requires Improvement.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ were not always met.

We found the provider was in breach of 5 legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing, need for consent, person-centred care and good governance.

At this inspection we found risk assessments and management plans were not always in place, adequate or safely managed. Medicines were not safely managed; robust recruitment checks were not carried. The service was not working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People did not receive consistent person-centred care that met their needs. Management governance, oversight and the provider’s quality assurance processes were not effective. This was because they had failed to identify the concerns we found at this inspection.

People's privacy and dignity was maintained. People were protected from the risk of infection.

The provider had not received any complaints and there had been no accidents or incidents since the last inspection.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.