You are here

Helping Hands Kensington & Chelsea Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 4 and 12 September 2018 and was announced on the first day. We informed the provider of our intention to return on the second day. Inspection activity was completed on the 26 September 2018. This was the first inspection of the service since it registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 December 2017.

Helping Hands Kensington and Chelsea is a domiciliary care agency which provides the regulated activity of ‘personal care’ to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The service is owned by Midshires Care Limited. Not everyone using Helping Hands Kensington and Chelsea receives regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the provider was providing services for 16 people, which included four people who received personal care.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, who was present on both days of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

Processes were in place to ensure the safety of people who used the service. The representatives of people who used the service told us that their family members felt safe and comfortable with their regularly assigned care staff, who were described as “very caring”, “outstanding” and “marvellous.” Staff had received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of how to identify if people were at risk of abuse, harm or neglect, and what actions to take to protect people. Detailed recruitment practices had been implemented to make sure that staff had suitable skills and experience to support people who used the service.

Staff asked people for their consent before they provided care and support, and respected people’s choices in relation to how they wished to be supported with their personal care. The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in planning and delivering people’s care and support. People’s needs were assessed by the registered manager before they began using the service and these assessments were used to develop individual care plans that considered people’s needs, wishes and aspirations. Risk assessments had been created to enable staff to support people in a safe manner, while promoting their independence as much as possible. Staff had completed infection control training and confirmed that they were supplied with sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) by the provider.

People were safely supported with their prescribed medicines. People's nutritional needs were understood and met where encouragement and/or assistance with eating and drinking formed part of their care plan, and they were supported to meet their health care needs where necessary. The provider worked in partnership with other local health and social care organisations to ensure that people’s needs were effectively met.

People’s representatives informed us that the care staff were well trained, punctual, friendly and reliable. Systems were in place to support staff with their training and development needs, for example staff attended group meetings with the registered manager and also received regular one to one formal supervision.

People and their representatives received written details in relation to how the service operated, which included out of hours contact telephone numbers and information about how to make a complaint. People’s representatives stated that they thought the registered manager would respond to any complaints in an open

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was Safe.

Staff understood how to detect abuse and the required procedures to follow to protect people.

Risks to people�s safety were identified and addressed, so that these risks were mitigated.

There were sufficient staff deployed to appropriately meet people�s needs. Recruitment protocols were sufficiently rigorous to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles and responsibilities.

People were supported to take their prescribed medicines by staff with applicable training.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was Effective.

People were supported by staff who had relevant training and supervision to understand and meet their needs.

Where necessary, people�s care plans contained suitable guidance to enable staff to effectively meet people�s nutritional and health care needs.

Staff respected people's rights to make their own choices about their care and support wherever possible.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was Caring.

Staff supported people in a kind, respectful and thoughtful manner.

Individual care plans showed that people, and their representatives where applicable, had been consulted about their specific needs, interests, preferred routines and wishes.

Staff understood the importance of promoting people�s independence, and maintaining their dignity and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was Responsive.

People�s individual needs were carefully assessed and their care plans were updated if their needs and wishes changed.

People and their representatives were supported to express their views about the quality of their care and knew how to raise any concerns or complaints.

The provider understood how to respond to people�s changing needs, including how to liaise with people�s representatives and other appropriate organisations if people became increasingly frail.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 November 2018

The service was Well-Led.

People�s representatives told us that the service was competently managed and the registered manager was always helpful.

The staff team described the registered manager as being �approachable� and felt fully supported by the provider.

Efficient quality monitoring systems had been implemented to identify and speedily rectify any concerns.