Archived: Safehands Care Limited Warrington

Updated 15 May 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was the provider’s first inspection.

At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care and support to 264 people.

The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector and two experts by experience who made phone calls to people in their homes after the inspection took place.

An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. In this instance, care for people at home.

This inspection took place on 19, 26, 27 March 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice as the service provides domiciliary care, and we wanted to be sure staff and people who used the service would be available to speak with us.

Inspection site visit activity started on 19 March 2018 and ended on 27 March 2018. We visited the office location on 19 and 26 March 2018, to see the manager and office staff and to review care records and policies and procedures. We also made phone calls to people in their own homes on 19 March 2018. We made further phone calls to staff on 27 March 2018.

Before our inspection visit, we reviewed the information we held about Safehands. This included notifications we had received from the provider about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service. We accessed the Provider Information Record (PIR) we received prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke to 14 people who used the service via telephone and 10 family members who cared for their relative. We spoke with 10 staff, and the manager. We looked at the care plans for four people and other related records. We checked the recruitment files for three staff. We also looked at other documentation associated to the running of the service.

Updated 15 May 2018

This inspection took place on 8, 9 and 15 February 2018. The inspection was announced, which means the provider was given 48 hours’ notice as we wanted to make sure someone would be available. This inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector and two experts by experience who completed a series of phone calls to people in their homes on the second day of our inspection.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. This was the services first inspection.

There was a manager in post. The manager was in the end stages of registration with the Care Quality Commission. 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 told us they felt safe using the service. One person gave mixed comment, which we followed up at inspection.

Staff were able to describe the process they would follow to report actual or potential abuse, this mostly consisted of reporting the abuse to the line manager. The service had a safeguarding policy in place, which we viewed and staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the policy. Safeguarding training took place as part of the induction for new staff and was refreshed every year.

Staff recruitment records showed that staff were safely recruited after a series of checks were undertaken on their character and work history.

Risk assessments were in place and were reviewed regularly or when people's needs changed. We did highlight at the time of our inspection that some risk assessments would benefit from being more detailed.

Staff were supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE). This included gloves, aprons and hand sanitizer. Staff we spoke with told us they were always able to ask for more PPE when needed. Staff had completed infection control and prevention training, and understood the importance of reporting outbreaks of flu and vomiting to the manager, so they could cover their work so as not to spread the infection.

People were supported with their medication in accordance with their assessed needs and in line with recent guidance.

The manager and the staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation. However, documentation was lacking in some areas with regards to assessment of capacity. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were supported as part of their assessed care needs with eating and drinking and staff were aware of people’s preferences.

Staff undertook training in accordance with the providers training policy. Staff told us they enjoyed the training. Staff spoken with confirmed they had regular supervision and appraisal.

Staff supported people to access other healthcare professionals such as GP’s and District Nurses if they felt unwell.

People told us that the carers who visited were all very caring and would always ask them how they are feeling and ask them what they would like help with.

People told us overall, that they were always kept informed and involved in their care.

We did not observe care being delivered, however, people told us staff were kind and caring in their approach.

Care plans contained detailed information about people, what their preferences were and how they liked their care to be conducted. Information in care plans was regularly reviewed and updated in line with people’s changing needs, which showed that the provider was responsive to people’s needs and preferences.

Complaints were investigated in line with the complaints procedure and responded to appropriately.

Audits took place which checked service provisions and action plans were implemented to improve practice.

Feedback was gathered from people using the service. We received some mixed response concerning how feedback was gathered, however we saw this took place.

People and staff spoke positively about the manager.