Helping Hands Gloucester

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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (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 strong proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and complete honesty. Staff actively listened to concerns about safety and thoroughly investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service had a robust approach to continual improvement of care quality. They took a proactive approach to ensuring learning was taken from events and maintaining safety was everyone’s responsibility. Staff were confident when things were raised with the registered manager, they would be taken seriously and drive improvements. One staff told us, “Instantly investigated. Straight away they will look at what we need to do. We have meetings, we had 1 recently and this is where we can talk about any issues or concerns about individuals. There is a time and place to discuss with the managers in the office.”

The registered manager embedded a culture of openness and adapted practice when needed to improve and meet safety concerns. The registered manager spoke of this as a collaborative approach saying, “We do a lesson learnt and we look at where we can improve and share with staff with confidentiality applied and discuss in team meetings and with the individuals involved and what we can do going forward, and any support needed.”

We reviewed records on lessons learnt that were shared with staff by the registered manager, which demonstrated an approach to always learn and improve. One lesson learnt piece of work had been around consent to care, picked up during a governance review. This revolved around consent being signed by relatives rather than the individual where they had capacity. Specific training and upskilling to the office staff team was delivered, a poster was printed and displayed in the office and staff were supported to be confident during care needs to make respectful challenges in line with Mental Capacity requirements.

Another example had arisen during a governance review in January 2026, when the registered manager identified an increase in medicine recording errors. This highlighted concerns that the monthly medicine audits had not been adequate in identifying these errors and a training area for staff. The registered manager took proactive steps to address the issue by implementing relevant training modules with a completion date for all staff, reissuing the medicine policy and disseminating a medicines bulletin. In addition, office staff received an auditing upskilling session.

People and relatives told us things were managed and addressed in a timely manner and outcomes were shared. One relative commented, “If there are any issues, they are dealt with promptly. They are very good; any issues they’re on the phone straight away. When my [relative] came out of hospital and their medication times had changed, they sorted it out for them. That gave us reassurance that concerns are acted on quickly.”
 

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 registered manager said they aimed to carry out an initial assessment with people before supporting them, in a timely way to support people not to be in hospital or an unfamiliar setting longer than needed. Reviews were completed to increase or reduce care where required. Staff told us all the information they required was detailed in peoples care plans and risk assessments commenting, “In care plans, it’s all in there, everything I need and then if I don’t know, I can call the office.”

One family member praised the staff for the support they had received during their transition to using the service saying, “Yes, we felt supported from the beginning. Communication was clear and we were kept informed, which made the transition into using the service much smoother.”
 

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibility in ensuring people were kept safe from potential harm or abuse. Staff we spoke with told us, “I would contact the office straight away and I feel very confident that the matter will be dealt with appropriately” and “I feel more than confident to report concerns. Hasn't been anything at all that I’ve felt concerned about in this company..”

People and their relatives told us the support they received from staff made them feel safe and they had no concerns with comments including, “I feel completely safe with them, they make me feel safe. I have no concerns at all.” and “Yes, I do feel he is safe. If I go out I can trust them. That is very important to me.”

People including families were appropriately supported to understand the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and how they would be supported with making decisions about their care. One relative told us, “If needed, I am contacted and involved. I feel part of the decision-making process and would be consulted regarding important matters.”

We reviewed some people’s mental capacity assessments and saw there was good detail recorded on how people had been supported to understand the specific decision to be made and the outcomes. These were individualised to each person and each decision and evidenced who had been involved in the decision making process.

Staff had completed Mental Capacity training and demonstrated a thorough understanding of supporting people who lacked capacity. One staff member told us, “As a carer you need to understand that your role is always to act in the best interest of your clients. So, you should always involve the clients in their decision making as much as possible so by use simple sentences or actions and giving them plenty of time to respond accordingly. We can also use their wishes or family members or friends can also help us to understand how they used to do things.”
 

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.

Risks had been identified, recorded and as far as possible mitigated for people. We saw clear recording of how to support people around risks that were specific to the individual. Staff told us they were updated about risks to people prior to supporting them and also fed back any changes they saw. One staff said, “I believe [Office staff member] writes the care plans in the Gloucester office. They express to me that if there any changes that are needed, we are their eyes and ears on the road.”

We saw people’s care plans had taken potential fire risks within their home into account when assessing whether the person would be able to leave safely if needed. Any concerns identified could then be addressed, shared with relatives, or if a referral was needed to the fire team or adult social care team.

Staff felt confident on actions they should take if someone was at risk or if someone experienced an accident or incident. One staff member told us, “We have had training and also do online training every so often and it’s confirmed on appraisals. If someone falls, I would check to see if the area is safe and not move them, check if they are breathing in pain or bleeding, call 999 and also let the office know.”

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 carried out checks on the person’s home environment to identify any possible risks and how these could be reduced. People had individualised environmental risk assessments which detailed hazards in their home. This included how to safely support people in the event of an emergency, any pets that people had and any increased vulnerabilities to be aware of.

The staff were supported to keep safe when lone working in people’s homes. Lone working risk assessments were completed and measures implemented including, ensuring staff carried a portable phone charger, had access to a torch and established a place to park that was well lit and close to the location.

We saw checks to the office from which the service was run had been completed by an inhouse health and safety team. This included emergency lighting, fire alarms and heating. Information about where people’s fuse boxes, electricity meter and heating controls were located had been recorded, so staff could support in an emergency or inform the appropriate professionals.
 

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.

Staff had completed a thorough induction. This included shadowing opportunities to support them in their role. Staff spoke positively about their induction and training received commenting, “My induction involved in person training and online training and an orientation. I met all of the office staff and had a chance to ask any questions I had. Shadowing was amazing and I feel confident in my role” and “I have had all the appropriate training including care certificate, safeguarding adults, first aid and hygiene, moving and handling, medication, infection prevention, health and safety including many more.”

Staff had been recruited safely following the required pre-employment checks. The registered manager had implemented additional checks before staff attended visits. This included going into the office and demonstrating tasks relevant to their role including how to access people’s support plan information. The registered manager said this was to ensure, “I feel confident they can access and are ready.”

Staff did raise to us that the time moving between visits was not always reflective of what was allocated. One staff told us, “Usually looking at 15 mins to get anywhere and everywhere. I don’t think they judge it very well. In evenings during rush hour, we only got 15 mins for a 25 to 30 minute journey. We have brought it up before, but they say they are working on it. I always stay for the allocated time. It makes me late for the next one.” This matched what some people raised about staff not always being punctual for visits, however the visit logs showed most visits were delivered within 15 minutes of the planned start time. There were no issues with the length of time staff stayed or the support given. We shared this feedback with the registered manager to revisit.

We saw where appropriate staff had undertaken training for clinical based care which was supported and overseen by the inhouse nursing team. The nursing staff were able to be part of reviews, observations and available for ongoing advice. The registered manager told us, “Staff have access to the learning modules and can assign any training they feel would be beneficial.”
 

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.

The provider had infection prevention control [IPC] policies in place. There were effective infection, prevention and control measures to reduce the risk of infection for people being supported and for staff.

Staff told us personal protective equipment [PPE] was readily available and knew for which tasks it was appropriate to wear this and how to safely dispose of it. One staff told us, “I wear PPE when I do medication administration, washes, cooking for people as well, whatever the support plan says..”

An infection prevention control audit was undertaken at regular intervals by the registered manager and reviewed the supplies of PPE at the service. This involved ensuring the IPC policy was accessible and in date and that staff wore the appropriate PPE during visits.

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.

People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent in medicine administration. Each person had a care plan which provided staff with the information they needed to safely manage and administer people’s medicines. Medicines audits were completed to ensure medicines were being managed and administered in line with people’s prescription and the provider’s medicine policies.

We saw that medicines remained a focus of discussion in staff meeting minutes and 1-1 chats to continually remind staff of their responsibilities and processes in medicines administration support. We saw it recorded how staff were encouraged to call at any time if there is a problem with medicine and highlighted the importance of raising concerns so they can be supported and lessons learnt it can be learnt from.

People had a risk assessment which recorded what level of training staff should have to safely administer each type of medicine. This ensured that people received their medicines from appropriately skilled staff. We saw that people who had been prescribed topical emollients
that was at risk of being flammable had good information recorded on managing this risk and the precautions staff should take to mitigate this risk.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them well with their medicines commenting, “He does not receive complex nursing care, but they support him well with his medication. They help with medication, with [medicine container]. This is done well and we have no concerns about this aspect” and “The best example is when he came out of hospital and his medication times had changed, this was quickly organised and corrected by the service.”