Magic Helping Hands

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 72 (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. The registered manager understood their responsibility under the duty of candour. The duty of candour requires providers to be open and honest with people when things go wrong with their care, giving people support and truthful information.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and reported safety events. One staff member told us, “Accidents and incidents are reported and discussed with the team so that we can learn from them and prevent them from happening again. [Registered manager] encourages openness and reflection so that improvements can be made” and another said, “Openness and transparency are main principles I have noticed so far. I would say that the service is dedicated to improving. Regular memos via email are sent to highlight important situations and appropriate actions taken.”

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Where learning was identified, action was taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. For example, incidents and accidents were analysed to determine any emerging themes and trends. To further support this, the registered manager created a dedicated ‘lessons learned’ newsletter. They explained, “We always discuss lessons learned in our staff meetings, but I felt staff needed extra support to reflect on our shared learning.” This demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement and a reflective staff culture.

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. A social care practitioner shared, “As [name] social worker, I have struggled over the last several months to find a provider who can successfully support [name]. I have found Magic Helping Hands to be professional, invested, empathetic and proactive. Their support for [name] thus far has been exemplary.”

Assessment processes were in place before support commenced. The registered manager demonstrated how holistic pre-admission assessments combined information from local authority assessments, health and social care professionals and the person themselves. The registered manager told us, “We complete a thorough assessment to determine whether we can support the person and meet their individual needs.” This ensured that care was planned effectively and that risks were identified and mitigated from the outset.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the specific safety needs of the people they supported. One staff member told us, “People using the service are well cared for and safe and I communicate with the office if there are changes." They described how regular reviews and assessments ensured care records remained accurate and up to date and care delivery remained safe and responsive to evolving requirements.

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.

The registered manager had been raising safeguarding alerts with the local authority and investigating concerns appropriately; however, there had been occasions whereby safeguarding notifications had not been sent to CQC as required. Providers must inform CQC of all incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who use services, including any allegations of abuse. Following the inspection, the registered manager sent the relevant notifications retrospectively to CQC.

Staff we spoke to were confident to report concerns and understood how to recognise the signs of abuse, describing the actions they would take to safeguard people. This action included informing other agencies if there were concerns about how the service was responding and what actions were being taken. A staff member told us, “I understand safeguarding procedures and know who to report concerns to. I am aware of our safeguarding and whistleblowing policies.”

People were supported by staff who had received safeguarding training and understood how to identify any safeguarding concerns.Comments shared included, “I feel safe with the staff, I would get rid of them if I didn’t” and “I do feel safe with them. The skills they have are good.”

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. One relative told us, “If I need to make any changes I ring up and they will work with us to accommodate things.”

The registered manager had taken steps to improve consistency and recording of incidents, helping to ensure any required action was taken to reduce potential risk. Systems were in place intended to support people to manage their own care and related risks. Support plans were person-centred with evidence of involvement from people and their relatives, where appropriate. One relative described how staff used outdoor activities to minimise a person’s experience of distress, telling us, “The carers will take [name] outside for a walk in the wheelchair, before settling [name] in bed.” By identifying and following these effective strategies, staff ensured people remained safe and their well-being was maintained during periods of heightened anxiety.

However, these positive practices were not consistently experienced by everyone. Some people and their relatives expressed concerns about the quality and reliability of support. One person told us,“The carer was sat in the bedroom with music on while [name] was asleep in another room unsupervised.”Another relative said,“There was a folder in [name]’s house but nothing in it. When ambulance crew were needed, there was nothing for them to refer to.”These examples indicated that risks were not always managed safely, and important care information was not consistently available when required.

People were supported in their own homes. The provider assessed environmental risks relating to each person’s property. Guidance was available to staff in people’s support plans about how to manage any identified risks and maintain a safe environment. This included consideration of factors like pets, security and equipment.

The registered manager ensured that all equipment, facilities, and technology were fit for purpose and supported the delivery of safe care. This included oversight of specialist equipment such as hoists. They maintained a clear audit trail of safety inspections, ensuring all lifting equipment complied with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). This proactive approach ensured that equipment remained reliable and that people were supported safely during transfers, minimising the risk of injury to both people and 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. Work histories had been gathered and two references had been sought for each member of staff. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been carried out prior to people starting work. Where overseas employees were employed, additional checks had been received from the country of origin.

We reviewed the service training matrix and found that mandatory training was up to date. The service demonstrated a commitment to good-quality care by prioritising specialised training, ensuring staff were equipped to support autistic people and people with a learning disability effectively. This aligned with current best practice and statutory requirements.

The registered manager had implemented measures to ensure that training translated into safe and effective care. This included competency assessments, shadow shifts for new staff and regular unannounced spot checks. Records of these checks were maintained within staff files. One relative shared their confidence stating, “I feel safe with staff, they are trained and capable to look after [name’s] requirements.” A staff member told us, “I have received the training that makes me feel confident to support and care for people in a safety way. People feel calm and confident when they see the carer is confident giving them the right care they expect and knowing how to use the provided equipment.”

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.

The registered manager ensured thatPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)was readily available and consistently used. Staff were able to access and collect necessary supplies from the office, ensuring they had the correct equipment to deliver care safely.

Staff had completedInfection Prevention and Control (IPC) trainingand demonstrated a clear understanding of their role in reducing the risk of healthcare-associated infections. This ensured people were supported by staff that adhered to current best practice guidance.

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. Staff were not permitted to administer medicines until they had completed comprehensive medication training and competency assessment. This ensured that only staff with the verified skills and knowledge supported people with their medicines.

Governance and audit processes were in place to maintain oversight of medicine records. The registered manager, supported by staff, conducted regular audits of Medication Administration Records (MARs) to identify any gaps or errors. Where concerns were identified, the registered manager took prompt action. This included discussing findings with the staff involved through supervisions and, where necessary, providing additional training or re-assessing competency. By maintaining these oversight measures, the registered manager ensured that people received their medicines as prescribed and that the risk of medication errors was minimised.

A relative told us, “They do medications but these are not specifically time related and we are happy that they are safely administered.” One person told us, “My medication is in dossett boxes but I sometimes forget to take it. My carers will remind me to take them.”