Helping Hands Cambridge

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 identify and embed good practice. The management team demonstrated a good culture of learning and continuous improvement. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify areas of learning or how practices could be amended to reflect people’s individual needs. People and their relatives said the registered manager responded promptly to situations, and staff confirmed they could raise issues at any time and felt listened to.

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.Staff worked collaboratively with people, their relatives and health and social care professionals to ensure care plans were reflective of people’s needs and were regularly reviewed.

People and relatives told us that staff knew people well and took time to understand how people wanted to be supported. The service ensured people’s needs were fully assessed before commencing providing support. One family member told us, “It was a very smooth transition, I’m tremendously impressed with them- basically I rang and said ‘help’ and they helped and sorted everything.”

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. People told us they felt safe. A relative told us, “[Family member] is very happy and safe with the carers as she knows them all.” Staff had received safeguarding training and had a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse. Records showed safeguarding incidents were investigated and lessons learned were shared with the team. We assessed whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found mental capacity assessments decision specific and reflected people’s individual abilities to make decisions about their care and support.

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. Staff took a balanced and proportionate approach to risk. People’s rights and choices about their care and their lives were respected. Risk assessments were completed when people started to be supported by the service and were regularly reviewed. People and their relatives felt confident staff understood them and could support them to manage any risks posed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment, as required. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Risks associated with people’s individual environments were assessed before staff started supporting people within their homes. People and relatives told us a safe environment was maintained in their homes by staff.

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. Staff were recruited safely and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. The provider promoted a learning culture and ensured staff had access to a wide range of training. Staff had received mandatory and condition specific training. Staff supervision sessions were completed in line with the provider's policy. Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team. A staff member told us, “I feel like I can always talk to my manager and she is very reassuring.”

People and relatives told us staff always attended scheduled care visits and stayed for the duration. Staff confirmed there was sufficient time between care calls. One staff member told us, “Helping Hands have been much better at scheduling than a different care agency I have worked for in the past. I never feel any pressure to drive fast, nor do I feel worried if I get stuck in traffic at all.” A relative told us, “They are mostly on time but always ring if they are running late which gives me peace of mind.”

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 had sufficient supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They received training to help them maintain good standards of infection control. Staff told us they followed procedures for the use and disposal of their PPE. People and relatives also confirmed staff followed safe infection control practices, with one family member stating, “They wear a uniform and have gloves which they dispose of in our bin.” Another family member told us, “They [staff] always leave the place clean and tidy.”

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. Where required, people told us they were supported by staff with their medicines. All staff who supported people with medicines had received medicines training and had their competence assessed regularly. Medicines audits were carried out routinely to check that systems were safe. If any issues were identified action plans were implemented to address them, and staff were reminded of best practice.