Archived: Hand of Hope Care Limited

Updated 10 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 announced inspection took place on 12 September 2017 and was undertaken by one inspector. This was the first inspection at the service since registration with CQC. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure a member of staff would be available.

Prior to the inspection we checked the information we held about the service including statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with the provider who delivered care at the service. We also spoke with the one person who was using the service. There were no staff employed by the service at the time of our inspection.

We reviewed the care records of the one person who used the service. We also reviewed records relating to the policies and procedures which supported the quality assurance of the service.

Updated 10 October 2017

This announced inspection took place on 12 September 2017. Hand of Hope Care Limited provides personal care to people who live in their own homes in the community. There was one person receiving personal care from the service at the time of this inspection.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, despite this being a condition of their registration. We raised this with the provider who assured us that they would register immediately. 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.

We were unable to rate the service as there was not sufficient information available to us to fully assess how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led the service was.

The provider was the person delivering care at the service at the time of inspection. There were no staff employed by the company. The provider knew how to keep people safe and protect them from any harm or abuse. There were policies and procedures in place, which ensured that the provider protected people from any harm or poor practice.

The person had care plans and risk assessments in place, which ensured that they received the support they had asked for in a safe way. At the time of the inspection there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs as the provider was delivering care to the one person who received personal care at the service.

There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff. The provider had devised systems to train and support staff, which ensured that they had the skills and knowledge to provide the care that was needed.

There were systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provider was aware of their responsibilities in relation to ensuring people gave their consent to care.

The provider was running the service and so continually monitored the quality of the service provided. We found evidence that they were in constant dialogue with the person who used the service and that care was adjusted as required. Concerns had been listened to and acted upon. There was a process in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns.

Care was delivered to meet the person’s individual needs and their preferences. The person’s nutritional preferences had been considered and catered for.

The person had access to health professionals and the service was able to facilitate this as and when needed to ensure their safety and well-being.

The provider understood their legal obligation to provide information about incidents which occurred at the service and there were systems in place to ensure that incidents and accidents were recorded and acted upon.