You are here

Helping Hands Guildford and Godalming Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

We inspected this Helping Hands service on 29 and 30 May 2018. The inspection was announced. 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, including people living with dementia and people needing care at the end of their life.

Not everyone using Helping Hands Guildford and Godalming receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects services received by people provided with personal care and help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.

At the time of the inspection, 16 people were receiving personal care and support from this service.

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.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed in a thorough way. Staff had clear information available to them to be able to support people safely. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks they may encounter when working in people’s own homes, and how to respond.

There was enough staff available to provide people with the agreed level of care and support. There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were met in case of staff sickness or an emergency. Recruitment checks were made to ensure staff suitability to work in social care.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely. There were clear procedures in place and the administration of people’s medicines were audited monthly.

People were cared for by staff who knew about and practiced infection control measures.

There was a low reporting of incidents due to the size of the service. The registered manager ensured that staff meetings were used to discuss possible incidents so that staff were aware of the need to report. Learning from the wider organisation was shared and discussed with staff.

People had their needs assessed prior to receiving care from the service. The assessment tool was comprehensive and took into account the person’s view of their physical and psychological needs. risk factors, environmental risks and possible risks to staff.

People were cared for by staff who were well trained and supervised. Staff had access to best practice guidance and policies that support them in providing safe and appropriate care. Staff training was in line with people’s care and support needs.

Staff worked together to meet people’s needs. Staff understood that communication was important for people’s care.

People were support to mainitain good health and and referred for appropriate health care when needed. Where people were being supported with meals, care was taken to ensure they had a balanced and health diet.

People’s rights were protected, as staff understood the principles of consent and how to apply the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff asked for people’s consent prior to giving care.

People told us they were cared for by kind and caring staff. Observations during our inspection told us that staff had developed good, close relationships with people.

Staff had the time they needed to complete care tasks. Staff displayed compassion when people needed reassurance and respected people's individual wishes and choices. People felt involved in decisions about their care.

People received care in a personalised way that responded to their assessed and day-to-day needs. Care was provided at the times when people wanted it.

People knew how to complain and were confident in giving feedback. The service had good procedures in place for receiving, investigating

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe and staff understood how to recognise and report potential abuse.

Individual risks to people were recorded and managed in a safe way.

There was enough staff available to meet people's needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

People were protected from the spread of infection.

Learning from incidents across the organisation was encouraged.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was effective.

People had their needs assessed prior to receiving a care service.

People were cared for by staff who were well trained and supervised.

Staff worked together to meet people�s needs.

People were supported to main good health, and referred for the appropriate health care when needed .

People�s rights were protected, as staff understood the principles of consent and how to apply the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they were cared for by kind and caring staff.

Staff had the time they needed to complete care tasks. People were involved in decisions about their care.

People�s home and their wishes were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care in a way that responded to their assessed and day-to-day needs.

People knew how to complain. The service had procedures in place for receiving, investigating and learning from complaints.

The service had cared for people at the end of their life and supported them with their final wishes.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager was well respected by people receiving care, relatives and the staff.

Staff were well supported, and good care was recognised and rewarded.

Quality monitoring was robust, and when concerns were identified and

action had been taken to drive improvements.

The views of the people who used the service and the staff were sought and used to make positive changes.

The service had developed a strong community presence.