You are here

24/7 Helping Hands Service Ltd Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2018

The inspection took place on 9 and 10 October 2018.

24/7 Helping Hands Ltd is a ‘domiciliary care service.’ People receive personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates the care provided, and this was looked at during this inspection. The service provides personal care for older people and younger adults. The registered manager stated that 15 people were receiving a personal care service at the time of the inspection.

This was the second comprehensive inspection carried out at 24/7 Helping Hands Ltd. The last comprehensive inspection was in April 2016 where we rated the service as Good. The overall rating for this inspection was ‘Requires Improvement’ as there were areas that required improvement in the Safe, Effective and Well Led domains.

The inspection was announced because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager was available to conduct the inspection.

A registered manager was in post. This is a condition of the registration of the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We identified concerns about a number of issues. A requirement notice has been issued due to a breach of Regulation 17, Good Governance.

Risk assessments were not always comprehensively in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.

Management had not carried out comprehensive audits to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service.

Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.

Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate action by referring to the relevant safeguarding agency. However, an incident had not been reported to us at the time the service had been aware of them, as legally required.

Staff had largely received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, though training on other relevant issues had not yet been provided. Training had not been checked to ensure staff understood care issues. Staff appraisals had not been comprehensive to ensure staff had been providing an effective service.

Staffing was in place to always provide people safe personal care.

People and relatives told us that they thought staff provided safe personal care.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.

People and relatives told us that medicines had been supplied so that people could take their medicine safely.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. A capacity assessment was in place to assess whether any restrictions on choice were needed in the person’s best interests.

People and relatives told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They said they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet any identified needs.

Care plans did not always contain detailed information individual to the people using the service, to ensure that their needs were met.

People and relatives were confident that concerns had been followed up. They were satisfied with how the service was run.

Staff said they had been fully supported in their work by management.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2018

The service was not comprehensively safe.

Risk assessments to protect people's health and welfare had not always contained sufficient information to protect people from risks to their health and welfare. Staff recruitment checks were not fully in place to comprehensively protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Evidence of lessons learned from an incident was not in place.

People felt safe with staff from the service. People had been assisted to take their medicines and had been protected from infection.


Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2018

The service was not fully effective.

Staff had not received all the training and supervision they required to carry out their roles. Staff had not been comprehensively appraised and supported to ensure they were providing a quality service.

People had their needs assessed in order to provide care that was right for them. The service worked with organisations to deliver effective care. Food and drinks had been supplied when needed. People had been asked for their consent before personal care had been provided.



Updated 6 December 2018

The service remains Good.



Updated 6 December 2018

The service remains Effective.


Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2018

The service was not comprehensively well led.

The provider did not have the systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. The service had not displayed their inspection rating, as legally required.

People and relatives told us that management provided a good service, listened to them and put things right. Staff told us that the management team provided good support to them.