Archived: Helping Hands & Co

Helping Hands is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own home. At the time of our inspection the agency was supporting 27 people. Most people fund their own care, although the agency also provides services to people funded by the Local Authority and Continuing Health Care when requested.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

There were some shortfalls in understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Whilst staff sought consent from people or relatives before providing any care or support this was not always from the appropriate person or legal representative. The registered manager had started to address this during the inspection.

People were protected from abuse. Staff were able to recognise different forms of abuse and knew how to identify when there was a risk it might happen. They received training and understood the provider’s safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures and who to contact if they had any concerns.

People were protected from harm. Individual risks in relation to people’s health were assessed and measures put in place to mitigate the risks. Environmental risk assessments were carried out in people’s homes which identified any safety risks to both the person and staff. Incidents and accidents were recorded and investigated appropriately and any learning shared with staff.

People received support to take their medicines, where required. Staff had a good knowledge of who required prompting or full assistance to take their medicines and how these should be administered and recorded when people had taken them.

The provider followed robust recruitment practices to ensure that only people suitable to work in social care were employed. These included criminal records checks, previous employment references and proof of identity.

There were sufficient staff who were deployed effectively to meet people’s needs in a timely way. People told us staff arrived on time and had time to sit and talk to them and they were not rushed. Staff told us the rotas were well managed and they had plenty of time to provide people’s care without rushing.

Staff received regular training, supervision and their practice was observed to check they continued to meet the required standard. Staff received an annual appraisal which provided them formal opportunities to discuss their performance and personal development.

Staff supported people to manage their health and make healthcare appointments where required.

Staff supported, encouraged or prompted people, depending on their needs, to eat and drink. Staff were aware of people’s likes, dislikes and any special dietary requirements.

Staff interacted positively with people and had a good rapport with them and their families. They were committed to the people they supported and were caring, compassionate and kind.

People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity and treated them, and their homes, with respect. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to do things for themselves, where possible and safe to do so.

People and their families were involved in initial assessments of the care they needed. Care plans were detailed and gave guidance to staff about how their care should be provided. Staff knew people well, including their life histories and interests and had time to sit and talk with them.

People knew how to make a complaint. They told us they would contact the office and speak with the registered manager who they had all knew. People told us had no complaints about Helping Hands. Where concerns had been raised in the past, these had been dealt with appropriately and in a timely way.

The service was well led by an effective registered manager. The culture at the service was open, transparent and welcoming. Staff consistently told us they felt well supported and were kept informed.

The service had been recognised as one of the top ten agencies in the South East by the Homecare Awards in April 2016. These awards are based on over 4,000 reviews by people and their family and friends from 1st April 2014 to 1st April 2016.

Effective quality assurance systems and service audits were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care and drive improvements. People told us they were asked for their views about the care they received and confirmed they were every satisfied. The registered manager covered shifts if required, and visited people at home to check they were happy and find out if they wanted any changes to their care.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities and submitted notifications to the commission when required. Records relating to people’s care and to the management of the service were up to date and securely stored.

We last inspected the service in December 2013 when we found no concerns.

People we spoke with told us that they had no concerns with the service provided. People told us they knew who to raise concerns with. They all said they communicated regularly with the manager, who they found approachable. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they had received safeguarding training.

Records showed that people were involved in decisions about their care. We saw that people who use the service had personal care plans, which identified their specific needs. Members of staff we spoke with told us that they offered people choices, which was confirmed by the people who use the service we spoke with.

We saw that the provider assessed and monitored the service provided. A quality survey was being carried out at the time of our visit. We looked at a selection of the returned questionnaires, which we found to be positive.

We looked at four staff files. Records showed that the provider had not followed the recruitment process appropriately for one member of staff.

Staff had received training and support. Staff's individual training needs had been identified, and action had been taken to meet them. People we spoke to told us that staff met their needs.

The provider did not have an organisational medication management policy or procedure in place. Staff were provided with training, but were unable to access clear medication guidelines.

The provider had organisational consent documents in place. For example, consent to share confidential information. We found that some forms contained insufficient, incomplete or inaccurate information.