Helping Hands Godalming

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 66 (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 did not always have effective systems in place to learn from incidents, complaints and risks. Whilst some evidence showed concerns were reviewed and discussed, learning was not always clearly documented or embedded into practice. For example, records identified a choking incident involving a person using the service; however, records did not consistently demonstrate what the person had choked on, what learning had been identified, or how care planning had been amended to reduce the risk of recurrence. We raised this with the provider at the time of our inspection who had already began to take action to address this. Staff understood the importance of reporting concerns and incidents and told us managers responded when issues were raised.

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.
Care records reviewed demonstrated good continuity between assessed needs, identified risks and planned care interventions.

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.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding responsibilities and were able to describe how they would identify and report concerns. Staff were confident concerns would be acted upon appropriately. Training records showed safeguarding training had been completed by staff and formed part of the provider's mandatory training programme. This helped support staff to recognise and respond to potential safeguarding concerns appropriately
 

Risk assessments reviewed were largely person-centred and promoted independence, dignity and choice whilst identifying measures to reduce the likelihood of harm. Records reflected people's preferences, routines and desired outcomes. However, risk management was not always fully effective. We identified examples where risks recorded within care plans were not always consistently reflected across associated documentation. For example, one person had an identified choking risk, but this was not clearly detailed across all relevant care planning and risk assessment documents. We raised this with the provider at the time of our inspection who has since actioned this and although risks were not fully recorded, staff understood the risk and knew how to support the person safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
Environmental hazards were considered within risk assessments and records included practical control measures to reduce risks within people's homes. We saw examples where risks associated with mobility, falls, home layouts and the use of equipment had been assessed and managed. Risk assessments also considered specific environmental risks, including the safe storage and use of medicines and fire risks associated with paraffin-based creams.
 

The provider had suitably trained staff with the skills and knowledge required to meet people's needs safely. Staff told us they received appropriate training, support and supervision. One member of staff said, "I have done all training assigned to me and all refresher training when it comes up" Another told us, "I feel like I have the training and skills to carry out my role effectively". Clinical training records demonstrated full completion across all clinical competencies reviewed. Staff recruitment was mostly safe, however 1 person’s references required further scrutiny to ensure they provided more information regarding people’s backgrounds. We fed this back to the manager at the time of our inspection, who agreed to action this moving forward.

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. Records reviewed included guidance relating to personal care, continence support, catheter care, pressure area management and skin care to help reduce the risk of infection. Staff received mandatory training relevant to infection prevention and control and records demonstrated staff were provided with information on supporting people safely.

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.
Records contained clear guidance for staff regarding the administration of medicines, topical creams, transdermal patches and eye drops. We saw examples where medicine-related risks, including overdose, infection risks and the flammability of paraffin-based products, had been identified and managed through personalised control measures. Training records demonstrated staff completed medicines-related training, including medicines transcription, auditing and electronic medicines administration record training.