Continuity Health Care Services PVT Limited

“At the time of our assessment the service was supporting 31 adults who were in receipt of the regulated activity, personal care.”

“At our last assessment we found the provider to be in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, medicines, safe and effective staffing, and good governance. At this assessment not enough improvements had been made, and the provider remained in breach of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, medicines, and good governance.”

“We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.”

“Since the last assessment, the provider had taken steps to address some of the concerns previously identified. Improvements had been made in areas such as the timeliness of care calls, and the provider had introduced additional monitoring and oversight processes intended to improve the quality and safety of the service.”

“Staff and relatives were generally positive about the caring approach of care staff, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's day-to-day needs. The provider also worked with external health and social care professionals to support people and respond to changes in their wellbeing.”

“However, improvements had been slow and were not sufficient to demonstrate sustained positive change or to remove the concerns identified at the previous assessment. Although additional processes had been introduced, these had not become fully embedded in practice and were not always effective in identifying and addressing ongoing issues.”

“Throughout the assessment, we found concerns relating to governance and oversight, incident management, medicines management, care planning, risk assessment processes and the review of people's care. Care records did not always contain accurate, person-centred or up-to-date information to guide staff. Risk assessments were not always effective in identifying and mitigating risks, and people's changing needs were not consistently reflected in their records. In some cases, records lacked evidence that care had been delivered in line with assessed needs.”

“We also identified concerns regarding the provider's application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records showed 1 person lacked capacity in relation to aspects of their care; however, appropriate mental capacity assessments and associated best-interest decision-making records were not in place.”

“The provider's quality assurance systems had failed to identify many of the issues found during this assessment, including gaps in incident oversight, weaknesses in medicines management, incomplete care planning documentation and delays in reviewing people's care. Relevant policies and procedures were in place, however these were not always followed.”

“People and relatives generally spoke positively about staff and described them as caring, kind and respectful. Staff demonstrated a commitment to supporting people with dignity and compassion and worked with a range of healthcare professionals to help meet people's needs. However, the provider could not consistently demonstrate that systems and processes were effective in ensuring safe, person-centred and well-managed care.”

“Overall, while some progress had been made since the last assessment, not enough improvement had occurred to address the breaches previously identified. Further work is required to ensure governance processes are effective, risks are appropriately managed, records accurately reflect people's needs, and improvements are embedded and sustained to achieve consistently positive outcomes for people.”

“This service has been in Special Measures since 12 February 2026. The provider…”