United 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. 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. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service has only been operational since June 2024. The registered manager told us to date there had not been any significant accidents or incidents, safeguarding allegations or complaints received. We found no evidence to contradict this. The service had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong, and we saw there was an incident form template to use should staff need to. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of how to respond to any such incident. Relevant policies were in place setting out guidance about how to respond if necessary.

People and their relatives told us they would speak with staff if they had any concerns. One relative told us, “To be honest, I've never had to make a complaint because we've been very happy with the service. Whenever I needed information or had questions about my [person’s] care, United Hands have always kept me informed and responded quickly. I've always felt comfortable raising any concerns if I needed to."

Staff had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. The registered manager completed regular spot checks and observations to monitor staff practice and ensure staff remained competent and confident in their roles. These checks also helped to ensure risks were being managed appropriately and enabled the service to identify and respond to any changes in people’s needs.

The provider 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.

The service worked collaboratively with external professionals to ensure safe and well-coordinated admissions, as well as smooth transitions when people required hospital care.

Prior to people commencing the service an initial assessment was completed. Where possible, this was completed at people’s own homes to help ensure that the provider could meet the person’s assessed needs and expectations. A relative told us, “Yes. Before the service started, the registered manager came to visit us and spent several hours getting to know my [person] and understanding their needs. The registered manager also asked what we wanted to achieve as a family and listened carefully to our views.”

Care plans were formulated in more detail following detailed discussions with the person and their relatives or representatives. These personalised care plans included comprehensive information such as clinical needs, medicine requirements, past medical history, identified risks, allergies, communication preferences, and contact details for those important to the individual. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated promptly when a person’s needs changed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People, and their relatives, told us they felt safe receiving a service form the provider. One relative said, “Yes, [person] is safe.”

The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations since the service became operational. Appropriate systems were in place to help protect people from abuse and neglect. The provider had relevant policies in place including safeguarding adults and whistleblowing. The safeguarding policy made clear the providers responsibility for reporting any allegations of abuse to the local authority and Care Quality Commission.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures. They knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to tell us the signs of abuse. A member of staff told us, “Any safeguarding incident, I will contact the manager, police or social services.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning their care which involved managing any risks to their safety.

Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified and appropriate guidance was in place to help staff respond safely and consistently. This included information relating to the use of equipment to support people’s safety and independence, such as shower stools and mobility aids. Risk assessments were completed in areas including falls prevention, nutrition, and hydration.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider completed risk assessments in relation to the person’s home environment to indicate if there were any possible risks and how to reduce them. Environmental risk assessments included checks on any equipment used, cleaning products used and other possible risks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Systems were in place that showed the training staff had completed and the dates the training were completed to ensure management oversight. A staff member told us, “I spent my first full day training, and I have completed a Care Certificate in the process, and I shadowed for five days. My probation review was within the first 3 months, which I have passed, and I had a spot check within the first 6 months.” The Care Certificate is a set of standards developed for the health and care support workforce, to support their induction and development.

People told us staff arrived on time and stayed the full time they expected, only leaving slightly earlier if there was nothing more they needed. Comments included, “The carers are reliable and punctual, and they always carry out their duties to a high standard. [Persons] home is always clean and tidy.”

There were recruitment practices in place to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring Service checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understanding of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection. The provider had a policy on infection prevention and control to provide guidance to staff in this area. Staff were provided PPE.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were recorded using an electronic medicines administration record (eMAR) system, which enabled medication records to be integrated into each person's daily log on the digital care planning system.

One relative told us, “[Person] manages their own medication, but the carers regularly remind [person] to take it and make sure they don’t forget. They [carer] also let me know when [persons] medication is running low so I can arrange repeat prescriptions. I have no concerns at all about the way medication is managed.”

The service had contingency arrangements in place in the event of a technology failure. This was evidenced by printed copies of medication records that were stored both in people's homes and at the office.

Staff told us they had received the appropriate training and were confident in administering medicines to people, when required. One staff said, “If I made or identified a medication error, I would first check the person's wellbeing, contact the office immediately, follow any clinical advice provided by a GP, NHS 111 or other healthcare professional, and complete an incident report without delay.” The provider had effective medicine management systems. For example, staff had received training in medicines administration and there were relevant up to date policies in place.