We carried out a review of the data available to us about 24/7 Helping Hands Service Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 24/7 Helping Hands Service Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
24/7 Helping Hands Service Ltd is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people using the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
At our last inspection the provider had failed to assess and monitor the quality of service. The provider had not reported safeguarding concerns to the Care Quality Commission which they are required to do.
At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements. Systems and processes were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided. The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities and notified the Care Quality Commission as required. Improved communication and systems ensured the views of people, relatives and staff were sought. The registered manager shared information and learning with the staff team when things went wrong. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulation.
All staff completed an induction and training for their role. Staff training had improved. Staff received further training to increase their knowledge and awareness about specific health conditions that affects people. Staff followed procedures which included safeguarding adults, health and safety and infection control and prevention. Staff were supervised, and their practices were checked to ensure they provided care that people needed.
People told us they felt safe. Risk to people had been assessed and reviewed. Care plans provided staff with guidance to meet their needs safely. People were supported to maintain good health, were supported with their medicines and had accessed health care services when needed. Where assessed, staff prepared food and drink to meet people’s dietary needs and requirements.
People were supported by regular reliable staff who knew them and their needs well, which promoted continuity of care. The improved staff recruitment process ensured staff were suitable and safe to work with vulnerable people. Staff knew how to report concerns when people’s safety and wellbeing was at risk.
People made decisions about their care which were documented in their care plans and respected by staff. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who they trusted and had built positive relationships. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted. People were supported by staff who were committed to non-discriminatory practices. People’s communication needs were met and understood by staff.
People received person centred care. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and their individual preferences. Care plans were personalised and took account of people’s lifestyle interests and their cultural needs. Staff worked flexibly to enable people to maintain their independence and contact with family and the wider community friends. People had the opportunity to express their wishes in relation to end of life care.
Everyone we spoke with felt the registered manager was approachable and responsive. People were confident complaints would be listened to and acted on. People’s views about the service were sought individually and through surveys.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 5 December 2018). At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for 24/7 Helping Hands Service Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
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.
24 / 7 Helping Hands is a home care agency supporting people who live in their own homes in the Leicester and Leicestershire. At the time of our inspection 13 people used the service.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
People who used the service were safe when they received care and support. The provider advised them about safety in their home. The provider had a robust recruitment policy and procedure but this was not always followed. Reasons why staff were considered suitable were not recorded.
People’s care plans included risk assessments of activities associated with their personal care routines. The risk assessments provided information for care workers that enabled them to support people safely but without restricting people’s independence.
Enough suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff were deployed to meet the needs of the people who used the service. This meant that home care visits were consistently made at times that people expected. Staff arranging home care visits were skilled and knowledgeable about people’s needs and ensured that people were supported by the same care workers.
All staff were trained in how to support people with their medicines. Support was restricted to reminding people when to take their medicines.
People were cared for and supported by care workers who had the appropriate training and support to understand their needs. People who used the service and their relatives spoke about staff in consistently complimentary and positive terms. Staff were supported through supervision, appraisal and training. Staff valued the support that they received.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015. Staff had awareness of the MCA. They understood they could provide care and support only if a person consented to it.
Care workers either prepared meals for people or supported people to make their meals.
Care workers received training to help them understand about medical conditions people lived with. They supported people to attend healthcare appointments and to access health services when they needed them.
Care workers were caring and knowledgeable about people’s needs. People were consistently supported by the same care workers. The registered manager had `matched’ care workers language skills with those of people they supported.
People who used the service were involved in decisions about their care and support. They received the information they needed about the service and about their care and support. People told us they were always treated with dignity and respect.
People contributed to the assessment of their needs and to reviews of their care plans. People’s care plans were centred on their individual needs. People knew how to raise concerns if they felt they had to and they were confident they would be taken seriously by the provider. Only one complaint had been received by the service.
People who used the service and staff had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. The registered manager and care workers were well regarded by people who used the service and their relatives.
The provider had effective arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service. These arrangements placed a high value to people’s feedback which was acted upon. The quality assurance procedures were used to continually improve people’s experience of the service.