We carried out a review of the data available to us about Helping Hands Wolverhampton on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Helping Hands Wolverhampton, you can give feedback on this service.
Helping Hands Wolverhampton is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in Perton and surrounding areas. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection visit, the service was providing person care support to approximately 46 people, some of whom were living with dementia.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found.
People received personalised care from an exceptionally well-led service. The registered manager led by example and staff worked collaboratively to improve people’s outcomes. Staff felt exceptionally valued and were proud to work for the organisation.
People and relatives were consistently positive about the staff and had caring, trusting relationships with them. Staff recognised people’s diversity and respected people’s privacy and dignity at all times. People told us staff went the extra mile to encourage them to follow their hobbies and interests and achieve their goals.
The registered manager continually looked for opportunities to build links with other organisations. The service took an active role in the community, supporting and developing initiatives which made a positive difference to people’s lives.
People felt safe and were protected from the risk of harm by staff who understood their responsibilities to identify and report any signs of potential abuse. There was a consistent approach to safeguarding and any concerns were taken seriously and investigated thoroughly in an objective way.
People’s care and support plans reflected their needs and preferences and were regularly reviewed. People had maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There were enough staff employed to manage the service safely and effectively. Staff undertook a training programme which helped them to provide high quality care to people. Their skills and understanding were regularly checked to make sure they provided safe, effective care.
People and their relatives felt confident any concerns and complaints they raised would be acted on. Governance arrangements were well embedded and effective in driving improvements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 14 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 were safe and supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report potential abuse. There were enough staff available for people and they had received relevant training and an induction which helped them to offer support to people. Risks to people were managed in a safe way and staff had relevant information to support people. When needed, people were supported to receive their medicines safely. When supported with meals people were offered a choice.
People were treated in a kind and caring way and were encouraged to be independent. Privacy and dignity was also upheld. People knew how to complain and when complaints had been made the provider had responded to these in line with their policy. People had the opportunity to participate in leisure activities that they enjoyed. We found care was reviewed and people were involved with this. When people needed access health professionals they were supported to do so.
Quality monitoring was completed by the provider to drive improvements within the home. Feedback was sought from relatives and people who used the service and this was used to make changes. Staff and people felt the service was managed and were given the opportunity to raise concerns. The provider understood their responsibilities around registration with us.