Kharis Solutions

Updated 13 February 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 10 and 22 January 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure the registered manager would be available to assist with the inspection and facilitate access to confidential records.

An expert by experience contacted five people who used the service and four relatives by telephone, on 10 January 2018. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed notifications and any other information we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We also contacted community professionals to seek their views about people’s care.

We spoke with the registered manager and five staff members, including care co-ordinators, new and experienced care workers. We checked some of the required records. These included three people’s care plans, three staff recruitment files and three staff training and development files. We read a sample of policies and procedures and read records of complaints and compliments.

Updated 13 February 2018

This inspection took place on 10 and 22 January 2018. It was an announced visit to the service. This was the service’s first inspection since registration with us in September 2016.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people and younger adults living in their own homes. There were 29 people using the service at the time of our inspection, in the Slough, Windsor and Maidenhead areas.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

We received positive feedback about the service. Comments from people included “The carers are wonderful…they turn up on time, they are as good as gold,” “I get on well with them all…I look forward to them coming” and “I’d never manage without them and that’s the truth. They listen to my moans and groans, they help cheer me up. They let my cat in and out. They always leave me a fresh brew.”

A community professional spoke highly of Kharis Solutions. They told us “Kharis Solutions have been providing excellent, safe and effective care to our clients in the community. They have been exceptional in promoting and empowering the clients with their activities of daily living and recovery with their physical and mental health. Our clients have reported that they have significantly benefitted from their involvement and speak highly about their care delivery. We would like to continue working with Kharis Solutions and would strongly recommend them to our clients in future.”

There were safeguarding procedures and training on abuse to provide staff with the skills and knowledge to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns. We saw a safeguarding matter was dealt with straight away and all relevant agencies were informed.

Risk was managed well at the service so that people could be as independent as possible. Written risk assessments had been prepared to reduce the likelihood of injury or harm to people during the provision of their care.

Some people were supported with their medicines by care workers. Staff received training on medicines practice. However, we found staff competency to administer medicines had not been assessed. We have made a recommendation for the service to follow best practice by carrying out medicines competency assessments for all staff.

The service was not providing end of life support to anyone at the time of our inspection. There was no care plan template to use to record needs specific to this type of care. We have made a recommendation to make sure the service follows best practice regarding care planning and end of life care, in the event of anyone needing this support.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager and care co-ordinators knew which people had appointed an attorney. However, there were no records or copies of the Lasting Power of Attorney documents to confirm this. We have made a recommendation to ensure the right people are involved in making decisions on others’ behalf.

The Accessible Information Standard is a framework put in place from August 2016 making it a legal requirement for all providers to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand information they are given. We have made a recommendation for the service to ensure people have access to information in a way they can understand it.

We found there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported by managers and said there was good communication with the office. They felt they could approach the registered manager and office staff if they encountered any difficulties or needed advice. Staff were supervised and received training to help them meet people’s needs safely and effectively. Recruitment checks were carried out to make sure prospective staff were suitable to work with people. We have made a recommendation about checking police records for workers who have lived or worked overseas, to ensure they do not have criminal convictions from their time abroad.

People knew how to raise any concerns. We saw people’s views and complaints were listened to; action was taken where necessary when staff had not supported people appropriately.

The service was managed well. The provider regularly checked the quality of care at the service through user surveys and spot checks. The service’s computer system enabled live monitoring of when staff were at people’s homes and could alert office staff if care tasks had not been completed. For example, if staff had not confirmed they had supported a person with their medicines.

Records were maintained to a good standard and staff had access to policies and procedures to guide their practice.