Helping Hands Bromley

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 72 (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 systems in place for staff to report safety concerns and incidents. However, incidents were not always recorded promptly, which meant safety events were not always reviewed in a timely way to ensure appropriate action was taken to reduce risks.

Staff told us they knew how to report incidents and concerns. One staff member said, “We record it and let the manager know as they may want to follow up.” We reviewed the provider’s incident and accident log, which included details of the people involved, the type of incident, whether relatives had been informed, whether notifications had been submitted, and whether risk assessments were in place. However, we noted incidents were not always recorded promptly. There were significant delays between the date incidents occurred and the date incident forms were completed. For example, one incident occurred on 30 September 2025 but the corresponding form was not created until 9 October 2025. Other examples included an incident that occurred on 10 January 2025 with a form completed on 10 October 2025, an incident on 12 June 2026 recorded on 29 June 2026, and an incident on 25 February 2026 with a form completed on 19 March 2026. These delays meant the provider could not be assured that incidents were reviewed in a timely way and appropriate actions taken to mitigate risks. Staff told us they always reported incidents immediately to the manager and they agreed actions to reduce a repeat of the incident.

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.

Prior to accepting a package of care, an experienced member of staff completed an assessment to determine whether the service could safely meet the person's needs. The provider gathered information from people and, where appropriate, their relatives or representatives to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their care requirements. As part of this process, the provider also considered whether they had sufficient numbers of staff available with the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and training to safely meet the person's assessed needs.

People and their relatives told us the assessment process was thorough and focused on their individual needs. One relative said, “Initially they came to the house and had an in-depth interview and assessment about their needs. They checked their medications, mobility and the aids they use. Then they reviewed weekly to check how it was going and needs hadn't 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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives consistently told us they felt safe receiving support from the service. One person said, “I feel safe with them when they are in my house. I have not had any problems that make me feel unsafe.” A relative told us, “I'm able to leave my relative with the staff because I know they are safe with them.” Another relative said, “I feel confident when I'm going out and I know they are safe and well looked after.”

Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and neglect. They were able to describe the different types of abuse, recognise potential signs that a person may be at risk, and understood how to report concerns both internally and to external agencies when necessary. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns and were confident appropriate action would be taken.

The new manager was knowledgeable about safeguarding processes and worked effectively with relevant health and social care professionals to ensure concerns were investigated and acted upon appropriately.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and demonstrated an understanding of the principles of consent, capacity and best interests decision-making.

Records showed mental capacity assessments were completed where there were concerns about a person's ability to make specific decisions. Where people lacked capacity, best interests decisions had been made in accordance with the MCA and involved family members and other relevant professionals. For example, one person with advanced dementia and limited verbal communication had a documented best interests decision regarding their personal care. Guidance for staff emphasised maintaining the person's dignity, privacy and comfort, using a calm and reassuring approach, and supporting the person to participate as much as possible.

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.

Risk assessments identified risks relating to falls, reduced mobility, moving and handling, and pressure care. These provided staff with clear guidance on how to support people safely while promoting their comfort and wellbeing.

Detailed care plans outlined safe moving and handling procedures and specified the equipment and support required to reduce risks, including the use of a profiling bed, airflow mattress and assistance from two carers for repositioning and personal care. The plans also described the techniques staff should use when supporting people with transfers and movement. Measures were in place to minimise the risk of pressure damage, including regular repositioning, skin checks, and ongoing monitoring involvement of district nurses.

A relative told us, “The care is good and we feel safe in the way they provide care. They are careful and know what to do.” Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's risk management plans and explained how they followed care plans and risk assessments to deliver safe and effective care.

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

Environmental risk assessments considered a range of potential hazards within people's homes. These included trip hazards, fire safety, electrical safety, home security and emergency arrangements. The assessments contained detailed information about identified risks and the measures required to reduce these and support people's safety.

The provider also maintained records of equipment used to support people with their care. An equipment log showed servicing and safety checks were monitored to help ensure equipment remained safe and fit for purpose.

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.

People and relatives told us they received support from regular staff who knew them well and delivered care in a consistent way. One relative said, “There are always two carers who come for the double-up visit. They are very experienced, and very good.”

People told us staff were reliable and usually arrived on time. One person said, “I have one regular carer and another that covers when the main one is off.” Another person told us, “They get here on time most days. If they are delayed, they call to let me know.” Electronic call monitoring records showed care visits were completed as scheduled.

Staff told us they had sufficient time to provide care and were allocated travel time between visits. They explained that where visits consistently took longer than planned, the provider reviewed and adjusted call times to ensure people’s needs could be met safely.

Staff felt supported in their roles through training, supervision and ongoing development. Training records confirmed staff had completed mandatory training as well as additional training relevant to people’s specific health conditions. Recruitment processes were robust and included appropriate pre-employment checks to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

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.

Systems were in place to support safe working practices and promote good hygiene standards when providing care in people's homes.

People and their relatives provided positive feedback about how staff maintained cleanliness and respected their homes. They told us staff cleaned up after providing support, put equipment and personal items away appropriately, and emptied bins when required. People also confirmed that staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.

Staff told us they were provided with adequate supplies of PPE and had received training in infection prevention and control. They demonstrated an understanding of safe working practices and the importance of using PPE appropriately to reduce the risk of infection. Staff also explained that the registered manager monitored the use of PPE through spot checks and reviewed the levels of PPE being used to ensure staff had access to the equipment they needed.

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 and their relatives spoke positively about the support they received with managing their medicines. One person told us, “They give me my medications 3 times a day because I can’t take them myself. They check the meds properly first.” A relative also commented, “They are meticulous with their medications as they need to be given on time.”

Staff responsible for administering medicines had received appropriate training and demonstrated an understanding of safe medicines management principles. They were able to explain the processes they followed to ensure medicines were administered as prescribed, recorded accurately and managed safely. The provider had systems in place to support the safe administration of medicines and to monitor medicines practice.