• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Safehands Care Limited Swinton

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

4A Moss Lane, Wardley, Swinton, Manchester, Lancashire, M27 9SA (0161) 222 5695

Provided and run by:
Safehands Care Limited

All Inspections

18 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 18 June 2015.

Safehands Homecare is a domiciliary care service located in the Swinton area of Salford, Greater Manchester. The service provides care to people living in their own homes, predominantly in and around the Bolton area. At the time of the inspection the service provided care and support to approximately 150 people. We last visited the service in June 2014 and found the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations, in all the areas we looked at.

During the inspection we found a breach of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to Staffing.

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.

The people we spoke with and their relatives told us that they felt safe with staff coming into their home and with the quality of the care provided. One person said to us; “Oh yes. My carer even takes the temperature of the water before she washes me down. We have had no accidents and I feel safe with her being in the house around my possessions”.

We looked at the systems in place to manage risk and keep people safe in their home. We found risk assessments were recorded in people's care plans which helped to keep people safe.

We found medication was handled safely and that people received their medicines at the times they needed it. As part of the inspection we visited two people in their own homes to see how medication was stored and also how records were maintained by staff.

During the inspection we spoke with staff about their understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults. Each member of staff was able to describe the process they would follow if they suspected abuse was taking place. One member of staff said; “I had concerns about one person and reported it straight to the office. I am not afraid to stand up and report things”.

We looked at staff personnel files to ensure that staff had been recruited safely, with appropriate checks undertaken. Each file we looked at contained application forms, CRB/DBS (Criminal Records Bureau/Disclosure Barring Service) checks and evidence that at least two references had been sought from previous employers. These had been obtained before staff started working for the service.

The service used a matrix to monitor the training requirements of staff. This showed us that staff received initial training in core subjects such as safeguarding, moving and handling, infection control and health and safety. Despite this, several training courses had now expired and had passed their date for renewal. This included Moving and Handling, Safeguarding, MCA/DoLS, Health and Safety and Infection Control. We raised these concerns with the manager and area manager who acknowledged this as being an area for improvement. This was a breach of regulation 18 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, in relation to Staffing.

We saw that staff received regular supervision as part of their on-going development. This provided an opportunity to discuss their workload, any concerns and any training opportunities they may have. We saw appropriate records were maintained to show these had taken place.

The people we spoke with and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided by the service. One person said to us; “I have a carer who is first class. I get a wonderful service from this agency. My carer treats me with great dignity and care”.

People told us they were treated with dignity, respect and were allowed privacy at times they needed it. People also said they were offered choice about how they liked things doing.

We found that the care plans we looked at did not contain sufficient person centered information about people who used the service. Following the inspection, the manager contacted us to say this issue had been addressed with staff and would look at re-writing the care plans with specific information about people’s choices and personal preferences.

There was a complaint procedure in place. We saw complaints were responded to appropriately with an individual response given to the complainant.

The staff we spoke with were positive about the leadership of the service. One member of staff said; “The current manager is very understanding which makes things easier for us”.

We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people who used the service.

5, 6 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector from the Care Quality Commission who helped answer our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

During the inspection we looked at respect and involvement, care, medication, quality assurance and records.

As part of our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, area manager, seven people who used the service, four relatives and one member of care staff. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our findings and observations during the inspection

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with seven people who used the service during our inspection who told us they felt treated with respect and dignity by staff at all times. People told us they felt safe and comfortable in the presence of staff and enjoyed having a regular carer when possible. The service had systems in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had been submitted to the local authority. We noted staff had also received training in this area. This means people were safeguarded as required.

The people we spoke with told us they usually had a regular carer, but that on occasions this changed if they were unavailable. Managers ensured people's care needs were taken into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required for carers. This helped to ensure people's needs are always met.

We found medication practices were generally safe and thorough. Each person we spoke with told us staff administered their medication on time in line with their care package requirements. On the day of our inspection, some families were responsible for the administration of people's medication and others were the responsibility of staff. We visited one person in their own home and observed their medication being given. This was done in a dignified way and all necessary paperwork was then completed.

One relative raised concerns with regards to medication administration and the provider assured us systems would be put in place to rectify these issues.

Is the service effective?

Initial needs assessments were conducted by the registered manager and were done in conjunction with people who used the service and their families. People who used the service and relatives commented how staff from the office had been to see them before their care package commenced. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw evidenced care plans were reviewed on a regular basis with people's care requirements updated accordingly. This meant people's care needs could be amended if required to keep people safe.

People's houses had been checked and appropriately risk assessed to meet the needs of people with physical impairments. This covered things such as moving around the building, security, kitchen area and gas/electrics.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Comments from people included: 'They meet my care requirements' and 'Staff help me to shower and assist me with my meals' and 'I'm treated with dignity and respect. That is one of their strengths I would say' and 'The carers are brilliant I would be lost without them'.

People's preferences, likes/dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. Risk assessments were in place and covered building security, moving and handling, trips/fall and appliances. We noted control measures were in place to keep people safe.

We spoke with four relatives during our inspection. One relative said: 'On the whole I would say they are very good although communication could be a lot better. We have cancelled calls in the past yet carers have still arrived. Staff at the office don't always get back to you and you can't always get through on the out of hours numbers'. We raised these concerns with the registered manager.

Is the service responsive?

There was a complaints procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy but had never been given reason to. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary when required.

Systems were in place to ensure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

There were other various quality assurance systems in place. These included the sending of regular surveys, observations/spot checks of staff at work and regular supervision for carers where they were able to discuss issues effecting their work.

Is the service well-led?

The day to day running of Safehands care is done by the registered manager and two care co-ordinators. In addition, duties are overseen by an area manager who was present on the day of our inspection and conducted regular audits of the work undertaken by the team to ensure standards were adhered to.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

We looked at the minutes from a recent staff meeting . There was an agenda in place which covered topics including training, staff rotas, safeguarding and dignity. We noted staff had been able to discuss any issues or concerns affecting their work.

9 October 2013

During a routine inspection

Overall, people told us they were happy with the care they received from staff at Safehands. As part of our inspection we spoke to four people who used the service. Comments from people included; 'I have absolutely no complaints. The staff are great. They help me with my meals, personal care and medication' and 'I currently receive two visits a day. The staff help me to wash and get dressed. They are extremely efficient at their job' and 'The girls are very caring. I am on first name terms with them all now we get along great'.

We looked at the systems in place which enabled people to provide consent to their care. We saw there were written consent forms in people's care plans. People who used the service were also involved in their care plan review and were able to make comment about the care they received or whether they would like anything changed.

We looked at three staff personnel files to check staff were recruited safely with appropriate checks made before commencing employment. We found both CRB's and references from previous employers had been obtained in each file we looked at.

We looked at the systems in place to both monitor the quality of service provision and deal with complaints effectively. We found there were several methods in place such as regular auditing, staff meetings and the use of a complaints log and supporting policy and procedures.

8, 12 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Our inspection was done over two days and included a visit to the Safehands head office to speak with staff, look at care plans, policies and procedures and staff records. We also spoke with some staff via telephone. We spent our second day visiting people in their own homes to gain feedback about the kinds of services they had received. As part of this process we spoke with four people who used the service.

The people we spoke to told us that they felt their needs had been met and that they felt well supported by the staff at Safehands. People told us that they felt well respected by the staff and got along with them all very well. One person told us; 'I look forward to their visit. I like what they do and I like the company aswell'.

We found that Safehands had robust procedures in place which protected people from the risk of abuse. During our visits to people's houses, one person told us; 'Before the carer's started coming to see me I was worried. I feel much more safe and re-assured now'.

We spoke with four members of staff as part of our inspection who all told us that they felt well supported to carry out their job role and were happy with the amount of training they had received. One member of staff said 'I am always getting sent on training. I think it's really important'.

We found that Safehands had effective procedures in place to monitor the quality of service that had been provided to people.