You are here

Archived: Safehands Care Limited Warrington Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

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 t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was safe.

People received their medications on time.

Risks to people were assessed, and there was information with regards to how to manage the risk to people.

People told us they felt safe receiving care from Safehands.

Staff recruitment was robust and checks were undertaken on staff before they started working for the service.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was not always effective.

Information around best interests was clearly documented. However there was no assessments of people's capacity stored in people's care plans. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff had the correct skills and knowledge and undertook training relevant to their roles.

People were supported with their meal preparation in line with their assessed needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.

People's preferences were reflected throughout care plans. This helped staff to get to know people and provide care based on their needs and preferences.

Care plans promoted people's choice and independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was responsive.

There was a process in place for recording, acknowledging and responding to complaints. People we spoke with told us they knew how to complain.

People received care which was planned and personalised in accordance to their preferences. Staff demonstrated that they knew people well.

Staff were trained to support people who were on an end of life pathway to remain comfortable in their home with additional support from other medical professionals.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was well-led.

A range of quality assurance audits were completed regularly to monitor and improve service delivery.

Staff we spoke with were positive in respect of the overall management of the agency and the support provided by the management team.

The registered provider had notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of events and incidents that occurred at the service.