Helping Hands Stourbridge

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 investigate safety events to identify lessons learnt.

Although accidents and incidents were recorded by staff, which included, where applicable, the external healthcare professionals safety events were reported to, the provider did not adequately analyse safety events for understanding and learning. For example, records failed to demonstrate the provider analysed the causes and circumstances of how safety events might have occurred, and the actions taken for understanding and learning. This meant people were at risk of safety events not being appropriately managed.

Accidents and incidents not being consistently reviewed within staff meetings was a further example of a lack of a learning culture in the service. This meant staff did not have the opportunity to share learning to improve the safety of the service.

The provider did not always ensure safe systems of care.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure safety events were adequately analysed for understanding and learning, and that care plans always contained relevant information about people’s needs. This meant people were at risk of their needs not always being clearly documented, used for learning and understood by staff.

However, the service used clear systems in other areas. For example, the provider ensured safe systems of care in relation to the transition process for people before they moved to the service. Leaders told us this process consisted of obtaining information about people’s needs by completing assessments of people with the participation, where possible, of friends and family who know the person well. When we spoke with people and their relatives we were not informed of any concerns regarding this process.

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 informed us they felt safe at the service. One person told us, "I feel very safe with the staff.”

There was a safeguarding policy in place, records showed staff had completed safeguarding training and staff were able to tell us the action they would take if they had concerns. Leaders told us how safeguarding concerns would be reported to the local authority and CQC, and care records demonstrated this had been done appropriately.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to consent to their care arrangements, decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisionsregarding key aspects of people’s care had been carried out to demonstrate decisions taken on people’s behalf were being taken in their best interests.

The provider did not always work well with people to ensure their needs and risks were clearly understood.

People’s care plans and risk assessments did not always provide information which accurately reflected people’s needs and risks. For example, they did not always provide information which adequately detailed people’s physical health and safety needs. Where people had physical health conditions, adequate guidance was not always available to staff, meaning staff unfamiliar with people’s needs might not be able to support them effectively. This exposed people and staff to the risk of harm.

However, there were also examples of care plans and risk assessments containing clear, detailed and person-centred information. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s needs and involved people in understanding and managing their own risks when we spoke with them.

The provider had systems in place to identify and manage risks within people's home environments.

Staff received health and safety training and demonstrated a good awareness of how to ensure people’s home environments and mobility equipment was maintained to mitigate potential associated risks.

The provider completed environmental risk assessments of people’s home and undertook observational checks of people’s home environments as part of the quality assurance checks they completed of people’s care and staff.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff recruitment records demonstrated safe and robust recruitment practices were carried out.

Staff received comprehensive inductions, received a wide range of both online and face-to-face training relevant to people’s needs, and received regular supervisions with leaders.

Staff told us they shadowed more experienced colleagues before being able to work with people by themselves.

Relatives were confident staff had the skills they needed to provide safe care. One relative said of staff, “They seem to have been trained in everything; they’re very well trained.”

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.

Training records showed and staff confirmed they received training in infection prevention and control (IPC), and staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment when they needed it. The service had an IPC policy which set out their IPC expectations.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff received training in safe medicines management and staff we spoke with demonstrated good awareness of medicines processes and people’s individual medicine needs.

Clear systems and processes were in place regarding the storage, administration and documentation of people’s medicines.

Leaders told us how they used an electronic medicine system to monitor medicine practices, and they completed regular medicine checks and audits to ensure safe and appropriate medicines practices.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the medicines support they received from staff.