Caring Heart and Hands LTD

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 75 (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 a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to record, manage and respond to accidents and incidents. An accident and incidents log was maintained, and the provider told us there had been one incident in the last year. An accident and incident policy was in place and had been shared with staff.

There were clear arrangements to support staff and ensure safety outside normal working hours, including access to an out‑of‑hours on‑call phone. The provider maintained regular communication with staff through phone calls, a private staff Facebook page and weekly emails, which supported information sharing and learning.

The provider offered support to staff following incidents and demonstrated an open and transparent approach. We saw evidence of meetings held with families following incidents to discuss what had happened and provide reassurance. This supported learning and helped maintain positive relationships with people and their relatives.

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.

The provider consistently completed comprehensive, face‑to‑face pre‑admission assessments for all people, regardless of referral source. This ensured a detailed understanding of people’s needs, risks and preferences and supported personalised care from the outset. A family member spoke positively about the preadmission process. They told us, “They came out to meet [name] and me and had a long chat. It was really good. Communication is really good.”

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.

All staff had completed safeguarding training, which was recorded on the training matrix and was up to date. Safeguarding concerns were recorded and monitored through a safeguarding log, which included clear actions taken. The provider told us there had been one safeguarding concern in the last year, which had been appropriately recorded, reviewed and responded to.

A safeguarding policy was in place and accessible to staff. Staff demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding processes and knew how to recognise, report and escalate concerns to help keep people safe.

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.

People and, where appropriate, their family members were involved in developing and reviewing care records and risk assessments. Staff worked with people to understand their needs, risks and preferences. Behavioural tools were used when appropriate to support people safely and effectively.

A staff member confirmed that people and their families were actively involved in care planning and reviews. People’s care and support arrangements were formally reviewed every 6 months. People had a choice about how these reviews took place, either face to face or over the phone. This helped ensure care plans remained up to date and reflected people’s changing needs, preferences and circumstances.

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

The provider completed environmental assessments as part of the pre‑admission process to help identify and manage potential risks in people’s homes before care started.

Environmental risk assessments were completed and clearly recorded within people’s care plans. This helped ensure risks were identified, monitored and managed appropriately, and that care was delivered safely in people’s own environments.

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.

Robust recruitment checks were completed before staff started work to help ensure they were suitable for their roles. All staff completed a comprehensive induction on commencement of employment.

New staff were supported through a structured shadowing process and worked alongside experienced staff until they were assessed as confident and competent. Staff were formally signed off before working independently.

Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal, which supported reflection on practice, development needs and wellbeing. Staff meetings were held every 3 months, and leaders operated an open‑door policy, enabling staff to raise concerns and seek support when needed.

A training matrix was in place to monitor staff training and compliance. Where staff completed training through external providers, including Leeds City Council, leaders reviewed certificates to assure themselves that training was appropriate and met required standards.

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.

Staff received health and safety training, which included infection prevention and control and food safety. This helped ensure staff understood how to work safely and reduce the risk of infection.

The provider monitored staff practice through regular spot checks, which included observing hand‑washing techniques and the correct use of personal protective equipment. These checks provided assurance that staff followed safe working practices during care delivery.

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.

All staff who supported people with medicines had received medicines training and were assessed as competent before administering medicines independently. Staff were formally signed off once they had demonstrated they were confident and capable.

Regular medicines competency checks were completed every 6 months to monitor safe practice.