You are here

Helping Hand Care Services Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2019

This inspection took place on 11 and 14 January 2019 and was announced. At the last inspection, in January 2018 we found two breaches of the regulations, Regulation 12 (Safe Care and Treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection the service continued to breach Regulation 17 and remained ‘requires improvement’ overall.

We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question; 'Is the service safe?', 'Is the service effective?', 'Is the service responsive?' and 'Is the service well led?' to a rating of at least good. At this inspection, we saw some areas of improvement. However, the service remained in breach of regulation 17.

Helping Hand Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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.

Medication administration records were not consistently completed to demonstrate people received their medicines as required. There was no formal audit process for medicines administration records, so it was not clear that issues had been identified and actions taken.

Care plans were not always reviewed regularly, and the level of person-centred information was not always consistent, with some templates and documents left blank. Some information about how people wanted their needs met was provided. However, this was not followed up with actions for staff to take. There was no audit process in place to ensure care plans contained relevant information.

People told us they found the service safe, and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Staff had been recruited safely. There were systems and processes in place to protect vulnerable people from abuse.

Staff told us they received good standards of training and support in the form of an induction, training modules, supervisions and spot checks. People were confident that staff had the skills necessary to meet their needs.

Staff understood their role in helping people maintain a healthy lifestyle which included a good diet. People told us staff were attentive to their clinical needs and documents showed the service worked positively with other healthcare agencies.

People’s health and wellbeing was monitored effectively, with their food and fluid choices taken into account. The registered manager understood their role in upholding the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and where people had capacity to make decisions this was clearly recorded and respected.

People told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Staff maintained people’s independence and upheld their privacy and dignity.

There were systems and processes in place for people to raise complaints and for these complaints to be investigated appropriately. People told us they were confident they knew how to complain and issues would be addressed.

People and staff told us that senior staff were approachable and there was a positive working culture at the service. Furthermore, they would recommend the service both to work for and receive care from.

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2019

The service was not always safe.

Medicines administered were not always recorded accurately. There was no effective process in place to ensure medicines recording errors were identified and followed up.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People told us staff were on time and communicative.

Staff understood how to protect vulnerable adults, and there were systems and processes in place for recording and investigating incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 April 2019

The service was effective.

People told us they felt staff had the right training to meet their needs.

People’s health and wellbeing were monitored by staff, and there was good communication between the service and other health and social care agencies.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 April 2019

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people, their personalities and preferences well.

Staff understood the importance of protecting people’s privacy and dignity.

People told us their independence was respected and upheld.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2019

The service was responsive.

Care plans were not always up-to-date and were not always reviewed regularly.

Some care plans had detailed person-centred information but this was not always consistent. Care plans contained information on how to meet people’s needs.

There were systems and processes in place for raising complaints and people knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Quality monitoring processes were not effective in identifying and implementing improvements required.

The service gathered feedback from people and staff and used this to make improvements.

People and staff told us there was a positive culture at the service, and senior staff were approachable and transparent.