We carried out a review of the data available to us about InSafeHands Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about InSafeHands Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
InSafe Hands Limited is a domiciliary agency providing personal and nursing care to 41 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
The service was planned around people's individual needs and was effective in meeting them. The service worked collaboratively with others so that each individual received an holistic and coordinated service
The service was planned effectively and well managed. There was clear leadership and oversight of the service. The registered manager was extremely knowledgeable, highly motivated and very well organised.
The support provided to people was seamless because there was a suitably experienced group of staff who could deputise in the registered managers absence. All staff had clearly defined and well understood roles. Communication between staff and the office was robust and this ensured the needs of people using the service were known. Any risks or changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and addressed.
The service had very robust systems in place to monitor compliance and help ensure the service was delivered in line with the organisational business plan. All aspects of the service took into account any relevant legislation and best practice. The service ensured compliance with its own key performance indicators through a series of checks and audits. They were not complacent and were constantly looking at ways of improving and making things better for people, families and the wider community.
It embraced new ideas and technology whilst also investing time and money its work force to be the best they could be. It acted on feedback and had a robust quality assurance system which put people at the heart of everything it did. It was open and transparent as demonstrated by its response to safeguarding concerns, complaints which were dealt with effectively.
Service delivery was safe and in line with the wishes and preferences of people. Timings of calls were monitored by an electronic system which ensured the safety of staff and meant people had their calls as planned. Any risks have been identified and planned for. Staff had sufficient knowledge about people to enable them care for people in line with their wishes and preferences. Staff had regular rounds which helped ensure continuity and people told us they got to know the staff and were able to rely on them and trust them.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were very well organised and efficient. They demonstrated a caring, flexible attitude and real commitment to ensuring people came first. Staff said they were never rushed and took pride in their work. There were robust recruitment processes in place which helped ensure staff with the right values and skills were employed.
Staff were supported through training, observations of practice, supervisions and annual appraisal. These systems helped to support staff develop professionally. Senior staff spoken with had been promoted internally through the organisation and were given the opportunities develop. This helped the service to attract and retain staff which benefited people using the service. Most staff we spoke with were experienced with many years’ service.
The service embraced equality and diversity and helped ensure that the service reflected the needs of people using the service. The service was regularly discussed with people to help ensure that they had no concerns or if they had ideas about how the service could be improved upon. This was acted upon and the service was forward thinking and maintained high standards in everything they did whilst continuously trying to improve.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (report published 13 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service has a registered manager who is also the registered provider and they were involved directly in the running of the business and the provision of care. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered Nominated individuals, 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.
People were protected by the service’s approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us that they were safe, could raise concerns if they needed to and were listened to by staff. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated and said that management listened and acted upon staff feedback.
We saw the service had trained staff well in the understanding of mental capacity and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Information in relation to people’s consent and records of people with Lasting Power of Attorney was well recorded ensuring people’s rights were upheld.
People we spoke with who received personal care felt the staff were knowledgeable, skilled and their care and support package met their needs. People who used the service told us that they had a small team of staff, who were reliable and arrived when expected. Staff confirmed that they were not rushed and had time to provide the care people expected.
Staff told us they were supported by their management and could get help and support if they needed it. Staff did receive supervision through observations and discussions that were recorded.
The service had systems to ensure staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. Care staff and the management team were being supported to achieve National Vocational Qualifications in health and social care and leadership and management.
The staff undertook the management of medicines safely and in line with people’s care plans. The service had health and safety related procedures, including systems for reporting and recording accidents and incidents. The care records we looked at included risk assessments, which had been completed to identify any risks associated with the person’s environment and delivering the person’s care.
People and staff told us when they raised any issues they were dealt with promptly and professionally and everyone we spoke with knew how to speak to the management team at the office if they had any concerns.
There were quality assurance systems in place to gain the views of people using the service and staff would discuss developments and issues together.
The service was an active part of the local community. We saw that the registered manager and staff were committed to supporting people to remain in their own homes with support and worked with G.P’s and district nursing services and other specialist services.
The registered manager was an active leader in relation to domiciliary care providers in the North West and also supporting the development of registered managers in the Cheshire East area as chair of their network.
Overall, people told us they were happy with the care and support they received from staff. Comments from people included; 'They are very good. I certainly have nothing detrimental to say about them' and 'They help me to get dressed, help with personal care and prepare some of my meals. I couldn't cope without them' and 'I've been with them for three years now and certainly prefer them to the previous company I was with'.
We looked at the systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. There was a policy and procedure in place for staff to follow and we looked at previous safeguarding incidents and found appropriate action had been taken against each one.
We spoke with staff to establish if they felt well supported to carry out their job role. There was a staff induction programme in place which followed the Skills for Care Common Induction Standards and staff had access to a variety of different training courses. One member of staff said to us; 'They are a very professional company. I was given a great introduction to care work'.
We looked at the systems in place to monitor the quality of service. This was done with the use of audits, surveys and observations of staff whilst they delivered care.