Neighbourly Helpers 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. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team investigated incidents, accidents and near miss occurrences to see if anything could be done differently. For example, following a situation where a staff member had deviated from the provider’s policies an investigation was completed. The learning outcomes were shared with all staff to ensure everyone benefited from this and the risk of it reoccurring was minimised.

The management team and staff members were aware of the potential of a closed culture. A closed culture is an environment where poor practices go unchallenged. We found Neighbourly Helpers Ltd had an open and supportive environment where people, relatives, healthcare partners and staff could freely express their views.

Staff at the service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had individual communication and needs passports which were reviewed when there was a change in need. These went with them to appointments or assessments to support continuity of care and equal access to services. People told us staff supported them to access additional healthcare services and advocated their needs if they could not do so themselves. This ensured the right information was passed to the right person and to make any transitions seamless.

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. When necessary the service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff members told us how they would report any concerns which reflected best practice.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding principles, including their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the role of the Court of Protection where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions. They were able to describe how decisions for people who lacked capacity were made in their best interests, involving people, family members or advocates and relevant professionals. The service was working within the principles of the MCA and any perceived restrictions were necessary, the least restrictive, proportionate and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure the person’s rights were maintained.

Staff worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Relatives told us they believed their family members was safe and protected from avoidable harm. One relative told us their family member is very safe with staff and they had no concerns in this respect. People had individual assessments of risks associated with their care and support. These included, but were not limited to, mobility, risk of falls, eating and drinking. Staff were aware of these assessments and knew how to keep people safe.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, and facilities were generally maintained for the delivery of safe care. However, people remained responsible for their own homes. Despite this Neighbourly Helpers Ltd assessed potential risks in the home and the community and staff knew how to keep people safe from avoidable harm. This included what environmental situations could possibly create a change in the person and possibly increasing the risk to them and what proactive techniques they could use to minimise the risk of harm.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff arrived when expected and stayed for the agreed amount of time and in some instances longer to suit the person’s needs. There were a couple of instances where staff had arrived later than expected but people and their families worked with the management team to resolve this.

Staff had been safely recruited and had access to ongoing support and supervision. People were supported by staff who had received training to support those living with a learning disability or autistic people.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading. People were supported by staff who had received training in infection prevention and control and knew how best to support them in a safe way.

Not everyone received support with their medicines by Neighbourly Helpers Ltd. When they did, staff made sure medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had been trained in the safe administration of medicines.

People had protocols in place for the safe administration of PRN (when needed) medicines including the prescribed dose, time between administrations and maximum dose within a 24-hour period. Staff felt comfortable and empowered to raise any issues regarding medicines in an open and transparent way. Issues were quickly addressed by the management team to ensure people received their medicines safely.

The management team were aware of the principles of STOMP (Stopping The Over-Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both), which were effectively applied. This included regular medicines reviews to ensure people were receiving their medicines in line with recognised safeguards.