Sambhana Care Ltd

Updated 10 January 2025

Date of assessment: 15 January 2025 to 4 February 2025. Sambhana Care provides care and support to adults living in their own home. We undertook this assessment to follow up on enforcement action issued after our last assessment. We found the quality of the service had deteriorated and there were now 8 breaches of regulation relating to the culture of the service, risk management, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, governance, consent, and maintaining people’s dignity. We found there was a closed culture within the service, the provider was not open and transparent about incidents that had happened. These incidents had not been reported when they happened, and the provider did not provide accurate information when asked about them. Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had not always been assessed and there was no guidance for staff to follow to mitigate the risks. Staff had not been safely recruited and had not received training and supervision to make sure they had the skills to support people safely. Medicines were not always managed safely. Staff had not always felt confident to speak up when they had concerns. The provider had not followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when decisions were made about people’s care and support. The service was not providing person centred care and acting in people’s best interests. 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. 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 user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

Updated 10 January 2025

People and relatives stated they were happy with the service. People told us, they felt safe with staff and generally had the same carers. Relatives told us staff were on time and calls were rarely missed. Relatives knew how to raise concerns with the office and found they had been responsive. However, we found some people who did not have someone to speak on their behalf had not always received safe care and support. People’s dignity had not always been promoted, people had not always been supported in line with their choices and preferences. People’s rights had not always been considered and the provider had made decisions which suited them rather than what was best for the person such as restricting visitors to people’s houses. People did not receive person centred care and were placed at risk from staff who had not received the training appropriate for their role.