Humble Hands Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this service. The key question has not been fully assessed to give a rating.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to staffing training and development, recruitment and people’s safe care and treatment.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Safe.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The provider understood what being safe meant and way to achieve that. Staff supported people’s in protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff in safeguarding people from abuse and how to whistle-blow on poor practice. We were not aware of any current safeguarding incidents. Records showed staff had previously completed training in these areas, updates in training were now due.

The agency supported 1 person. This person had the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves and was not subject to any restrictions on their liberty. Staff were described as consistent and reliable. The person’s relative told us, “They [staff] arevery goodand really look after [relative]. It’s a relief.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were not sufficiently detailed, reflecting the needs of the person and strategies for staff to help mitigate such risks. The initial assessment and care plan showed the person was self-medicating. However, records completed by staff referred to the application of creams. There was no assessment or plan in place to guide staff and practice followed was not in line with procedure. Records also stated staff were to record all pressure care checks. Again, there was no further information to guide staff or evidence to show these checks were being made.

A specific risk assessment had been completed in relation to a health condition, this lacked detail about how to support the person in minimising risk or how the level of risk had been determined.

We also noted some information referred to another care agency and information dating back to 2023, prior to any service being provided by the agency. This did not demonstrate accurate and complete records were maintained.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider had not completed a robust assessment of the person’s property including arrangements in relation to environmental and fire safety, so staff knew what action to taken in the event of an emergency, to keep them and the person safe.

The agency had a contingency plan. However, this did not accurately reflect information to effectively guide and support staff. Information did not accurately reflect the organisational structure; there was no reference to the local authority, where the person and staff lived, and records referenced a different local authority., The person’s needs conflicted with those on the assessment and plan and there were no details in relation to landlord and emergency contacts.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support,supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Only 2 care staff worked for Humble Hands. Records showed staff had not been safely recruited. Personnel files did not include an application form with employment history, written references to evidence conduct in previous employment or clear interview records and decisions relating to their suitability for appointment. Copies of Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) were on file. However, these had not been completed by the provider. DBS numbers forwarded to us by one of the Directors did not correspond with the checks on file.

Records were held in relation to staff induction, supervision and training. These were not carried out in line with the agencies policy and procedure. Inductions were not in line with Skills for Care and provided no evidence of any meaningful discussion to help assess staff knowledge and understanding. Whilst we were told staff had previous care experience, this could not be formally corroborated as relevant information and checks had not been gathered as part of the recruitment process.

Supervision sessions were not carried out in line with procedure. We were told the registered manager would travel from Manchester to Newcastle to meet with staff. However, we received conflicting information about how and where meetings were held, which did not provide a private space for staff to discuss their work. Records seen provided no evidence of any meaningful discussion between the registered manager and staff about their work or learning and support needs.

A review of the staff training and development policy stated staff would have a portfolio to record their learning and qualifications gained. The portfolio would also contain a personal development plan, which was developed from the person’s supervision sessions and annual appraisal and include further training opportunities. However, we saw no evidence of any plans in place. One staff had expressed a wish for more training, which was relevant to the person supported.

A programme of eLearning training was provided. A review of records showed these had been completed by the 2 staff members and the registered manager. Some areas had been highlighted for renewal. We were told the registered manager would carry out assessments of staff in areas such as medication. However, the registered manager acknowledged they had not updated their training; nor had their competency recently been assessed.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Care plans reflected the support required in relation to personal care and the use of aids. Information also referred to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, this did not included arrangements for the safe disposal of items to minimise the risk of cross infection.

Staff said they had access to PPE and a review of records showed training had been provided.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.