We carried out a review of the data available to us about Helping Angels Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Helping Angels Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Helping Angels Ltd is registered to provide personal care support to people living in their own homes in the community. People who used the service included older adults (some of whom were living with dementia) with physical health needs and disabled young adults and children. At the time of our inspection, 85 people were receiving personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had learnt lessons when things went wrong. Following a recent concern raised the provider had acted quickly and implemented policies and procedures to ensure safe ways of working.
People felt safe in their home and with the staff who supported them.
Staff were recruited safely and received a comprehensive induction.
Risk assessments were robust and updated regularly. People told us calls were on time and if there was a potential issue regarding a call, they were informed straight away.
Staff received safeguarding training. They described how they could recognise unsafe care practices and the action they would take to report poor practice.
People felt involved in the care provided. People told us they were informed following any changes and their opinions were sought. Staff felt they could offer suggestions to improve the care provided. There was a culture of learning from when things went wrong.
The registered manager and staff understood their roles, and were clear about quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements.
Audits were carried out regularly to monitor and review care provided. These successfully picked up on discrepancies and enabled the provider to act to reduce mistakes from occurring in the future.
The service worked in partnership with other professionals and other care providers to achieve good outcomes for people. Staff members and people had confidence in the registered manager and understood the core values of the organisation.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 December 2017).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to staffing and poor risk management. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has not changed following this focused inspection and remains Good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Helping Angels Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
There was 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.
At the last inspection on 21 November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to ensure they were following guidance when people were not able to make decisions about their care. They sent us an action plan on 4 April 2017, and at this inspection, we found the action had been completed. At the last inspection, the service received an overall rating of ‘requires improvement.’ At this inspection, the provider had made the improvements needed, and is now rated overall as ‘good.’
People were safe receiving support from staff who understood how to protect them from abuse. Risks to individuals were managed and staff knew how to reduce the risk of harm. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe, and people were supported by a regular team of staff. The provider followed safe recruitment practices to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. When people needed support with the medicines, this was done safely. People who used the service and staff were protected by the prevention and control of infection. The provider took action and made improvements when practice issues were identified.
The provider followed guidance when people were not able to make decisions about the care they received. Staff understood how to put this guidance into practice. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. When able to, people had consented to receiving care and staff gained their agreement prior to assisting them. People’s needs were assessed and their support was delivered in line with current guidance. Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care to people. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and access healthcare services when needed. The provider worked with other organisations to enable people to receive co-ordinated care and support.
People were treated with kindness, and staff knew people and their families well. Staff were able to communicate well with people, and understood how to do this if people did not use spoken language. People were able to make decisions about their care and staff listened and respected their choices. Staff had the time to provide support in a compassionate and understanding way. People’s dignity was maintained, their privacy respected, and their independence promoted. The support people received enabled them to maintain relationships that were important to them.
People contributed to the planning and review of their care. They received support that was individual and their care records were personal to them. When needed, people’s care records were adapted to make them easier for people to understand. People knew how to raise concerns or complaints. They were confident to do this, and the provider took timely action to deal with any issues. The provider expected staff to have a caring and non-discriminatory approach to people who used the service and their colleagues.
There was a registered manager in post who understood their responsibilities. The service was well-led, and staff and people who used the service were clear about the different roles people had. Staff were motivated and supported to do their jobs, and the provider encouraged them to contribute to the development of the service. People and their relatives were able to share their experiences about the care they received. The provider had made links with the local community and considered ways to develop the service in the future.
There was 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.
Staff gained people’s consent before they were supported. However, when people were unable to make decisions about their care, the provider had not assessed their capacity, and was not able to show how decisions made on behalf of these people were in their best interests.
Some people needed greater continuity in the support they received, and staff did not always have the information required to provide individualised support to people. The provider did not actively encourage people to share their experiences and some people were not confident to report concerns.
People were kept safe by staff who knew how to safeguard people and protect them from harm. Staff understood how to recognise possible abuse and were confident to report any concerns. Risks associated with people’s care were assessed and staff knew how to support people to minimise any risks. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and the provider had recruitment processes to check staffs suitability to work with people. Medicines were managed to reduce any risks associated with them.
Staff had the knowledge to provide effective care to people, and they received training to develop their skills. People were able to make choices about the food they ate and were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were involved with the assessment and planning of their care, and the provider was responsive to people’s changing needs.
Staff supported people in a kind a caring manner and people had developed positive relationships with them. People were involved in making decisions about their day-to-day care, and staff promoted their independence. People were treated in a dignified manner and their privacy was respected.
The service was well managed and the provider had systems in place that identified areas where improvements were required. There were quality checks in place and these were used to drive continuous improvement. Staff felt supported and valued in their roles and the registered manager understood their responsibilities.
We found a breach 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 the report.