• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Helping Hands Community Care - Blyth

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

79 Bridge Street, Blyth, Northumberland, NE24 2AN (01670) 797946

Provided and run by:
HH Community Care Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile
Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

30 January 2017

During a routine inspection

We last inspected this service in March 2015 where we found the provider was not meeting Regulations 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 related to governance of the service. The provider sent us an action plan of how they were going to address these issues. At this inspection we found that concerns remained in relation to Regulation 17 and we found other areas of concern.

This announced inspection took place on 30 and 31 January and 1, 3 and 7 February 2017. The inspection was announced so we could be sure that staff would be available in the office, as it is a domiciliary care service, and to allow that people who used the service to be informed that an inspection was underway. We planned this inspection to follow up on the breach at the last inspection. We subsequently decided to complete a full comprehensive inspection of this service because there had been a number of concerns raised regarding the providers other service and we wanted to confirm that the same issues were not replicated at Helping Hands Community Care - Blyth.

Helping Hands Community Care - Blyth provides personal care and support to people within their own homes or the community across the whole of Northumberland. At the time of our inspection over 900 people were active on the service's register with 415 staff members employed to provide various forms of care and support.

A range of people used the service including older people, young adults, children, those people with complex care needs, those with a mental health condition and those with learning disabilities. Staff supported people with a variety of care packages, ranging from shopping and sitting services to 24 hour support which included personal care, meal preparation and administration of medicines. The service also offered an enablement service. This means staff support people to do tasks they would not normally be able to do without support. For example, going out to the shop or visiting friends or family members.

The service had a manager in post who had started the process to apply to become a registered manager. 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. The provider had recently appointed a new managing director and a new nominated individual. A nominated individual has responsibility for supervising the way that the regulated activity is managed. They should be an employed director, manager or secretary of the organisation.

The provider had failed to fully meet the requirement notice relating to the previous breach of Regulation 17, good governance.

Medicines management needed to be improved. For example, staff had not always fully recorded administration of people’s medicines and this made it unclear if people had received their medicines on time and as prescribed. The provider had started to make some improvements in this area.

People’s records were not always up to date or relevant, including care plans and risk assessments and capacity assessments. Reviews of people's care records had taken place. There were no robust quality monitoring checks in place for care records, medicines procedure or full health and safety within the service. We also found policy and procedures were not always in date or in place.

People were encouraged to make their own decisions and had choice in what they wanted to do. A record of a person’s capacity was made available from the local authority if the person was contracted through them. However, the service had not routinely assessed people’s capacity or what that meant for care staff, particularly those privately funded.

The service had not routinely asked for details of lasting powers of attorney or if a person was under the Court of Protection. This meant details may have been missing which were needed to make a best interests decision and ensure the correct people were involved.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the service offered. Staff were able to describe correctly what actions they would take if they suspected any abuse occurring.

There was enough staff to provide cover to all of the people who received care and support from the service. However, we have recommended that the provider review scheduling rotas and staff travel arrangements to ensure enough time was allocated for care delivery and to maintain staff welfare.

The provider was rolling out a new training programme to ensure staff were up to date with best practice.

Staff told us they felt supported. Supervision and appraisal systems were in place, although there was not a consistent approach and records were not always in place. Staff meetings took place. We have made a recommendation that all meetings are recorded.

People who received support with meals and drinks told us staff supported them well and helped them to maintain their nutrition and hydration levels, including offering them choice in the support they received. People who were supported with activities as part of their care package confirmed staff helped them to remain socially connected.

People who required additional support from other healthcare professionals, for example GP’s, were supported by staff to arrange this.

People and their families were complimentary about the kind and caring nature of the staff who supported them. They confirmed that dignity was maintained and staff respected them as individuals.

People knew how to complain and we found staff had dealt with any complaint received appropriately and within suitable timescales.

We found two breaches of Regulations with regard to Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The provider had not sent notifications to the Commission which are a legal requirement of their registration regarding, for example, notifications of change to the registered manager. That meant they were in breach of Regulation 15 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

24, 25 and 26 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 24, 25 and 26 March 2015 and was announced. This was so we could be sure that somebody would be available in the office, as it is a domiciliary care service. We last inspected this service in August 2013 and found no breaches of regulations at that time.

Helping Hands Community Care – Blyth provides personal care and support to people either within their own homes or the community in the Northumberland area. The organisation is large and at the time of our inspection the provider delivered care and support, in one form or another, to over 850 people. Over 500 staff were employed by the provider at this location. The majority of people using the service are older persons, although the provider also offers care and support to people with learning disabilities, brain acquired injuries and a respite service for parents of children with disabilities. The support provided ranges from 24 hour care packages to supporting people with shopping, housework and companionship. The provider also facilitates a number of drop in centres across the region which people can attend if they would like social contact and activities to pursue.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager had been in post and registered with the Care Quality Commission since June 2013. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

People spoke highly of staff whom they said supported them well. They told us they felt safe and there were systems in place to protect people from abuse and channels through which staff could raise concerns. Records showed that safeguarding matters had been handled appropriately and referred on to either people’s care managers or Northumberland local authority safeguarding team for investigation.

People’s needs and risks that they were exposed to in their daily lives were assessed. Care records were reviewed and medicines managed and administered safely. Staff supported people to manage health and safety risks within their own homes and refer matters on to third parties if necessary. Recruitment processes were thorough and included checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character, appropriately skilled and physically and mentally fit. Staffing levels were determined by people’s needs and the number of people using the service. There were no significant issues with staffing.

Staff records showed that they received training in key areas such as safeguarding, medication and moving and handling. Training was up to date but some records related to training needed to be updated to reflect the current position. Supervision and appraisal systems were in place. Staff meetings took place and staff confirmed that management were approachable and they could feedback their views at any time.

CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and any applications to deprive people of their liberty. People’s ability to make informed decisions had been assessed, and the ‘best interest’ decision process was followed in practice. The organisation’s involvement in any best interest decision making, was not clearly documented within people’s care records. In addition, the provider had not explored with people’s families if there were any court of protection orders or lasting power of attorney’s in place. The provider gave his assurances that going forward, improvements in records would be made in this area.

People told us that they were supported to access healthcare services if they needed this help. Records showed that where staff were concerned about people’s well-being during a visit, they contacted relevant healthcare professionals for assistance and advice, with the person’s consent. People were given support with nutrition where necessary.

People said they enjoyed positive relationships with staff whom they found helpful, kind and caring. They commented that they were able to remain as independent as possible, they were given choices and they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. People’s relatives also spoke highly of the staff team and said they felt involved in their relation’s care.

The provider told us that he monitored the business performance informally, but management information could easily be extracted from an electronic system. Records showed that where issues were identified, these were reported to management and resolved as soon as possible. People told us they knew how to complain and we saw a complaints policy and procedure was in place. We received positive feedback about the leadership and management of the service, from people, their relatives and staff.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and their corresponding regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was Regulation 20, Records, which corresponds to Regulation 17, Good governance, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

31 July and 1, 6 August 2013

During a routine inspection

828 people were receiving a service from this provider at the time of our inspection. We sent out 61 questionnaires to people. Each person was also sent an additional questionnaire to give to a relative, friend or advocate, for completion. A total of 38 questionnaires were returned. 21 were received from people who used the service and 17 were received from relatives. We visited two people in their own homes to find out their opinions of the service.

Overall, people and their relatives seemed satisfied with the service being provided. One person commented, "I couldn't fault them. I wouldn't be here without them.' We found that care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage medicines.

We found suitable arrangements were in place to ensure people who used the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse.

Appropriate checks we're undertaken before staff began work. People were complimentary about the staff themselves. One person said, "They're all nice. I haven't had any I didn't like."

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.