Safe Hands Care & Support Services

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 continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had systems in place to review and investigate accidents and incidents. Systems were in place for recording and analysing any trends and changes were implemented in response to any lessons learned. The provider had also recently introduced a new electronic system to record, manage and analyse accidents and incidents and were in the process of transitioning fully to the new system.

Staff reported an open culture where they were encouraged to report all concerns. They told us, “The management team take concerns seriously and take appropriate action and share the outcomes with us.”

The provider communicated effectively with staff, ensuring information was shared clearly, promptly, and in a manner that supported consistent understanding across the team. Staff were also supported through ongoing development opportunities.

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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Information of care needs assessed by the local authority prior to people joining the service and information from people and their relatives was used to inform people’s care plans and risk assessments. A person told us, “I was involved [in my care plan].”

Procedures were in place to ensure people’s transitions into and out of the service were well planned and coordinated. Staff involved people, their families and relevant healthcare professionals to ensure transitions were safe, person centred and responsive to individual needs.

Processes were in place to ensure people received continuity of care, for example, when being transferred to hospital, their care slots remained available for a period of time to allow them to return back to the same care provider.

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 were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. One person told us, “I feel safe with the carers.” A relative added, “[Relative] feels very safe with the staff and I think the reason for that is that [relative] has regular carers.”

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. Staff we spoke with were confident to report concerns and satisfied that action would be taken to investigate them. Staff told us, “If I have a safeguarding concern, I report it immediately to the manager or safeguarding lead. The safety of the service user is always the first priority” and “I report [safeguarding concerns] to the office or manager immediately and record it so the right action can be taken.”

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Information about people’s cognition were recorded in their care plans. Concerns about people’s metal capacity were escalated to the local authority and health care professionals.

Staff received training in the MCA. Staff understood consent, the principles of decision-making, mental capacity and deprivation of people's liberty. One staff member told us, “MCA is used to check if a person can understand information and make decisions about their care.”

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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service. Care plans provided guidance for staff to ensure people received safe and responsive care and support. Risks were assessed and mitigated to keep people safe. Risk assessments were person-centred and regularly reviewed.

People and relatives told us staff managed people’s care needs and the associated risks well. Comments included, “I have coeliac disease and staff know all about that” and “I use a walker to get round the house; the staff know how to support me with this.”

People and their relatives were involved in care planning. This was reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed. A relative told us, “When the care plan was set up, my sister and I had an online meeting with the company manager to set up the care. There were no issues with this, we went through all the details of what [relative] needed.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People's care plans contained information which evidenced the safety of people’s home environment had been considered. Environmental risk assessments were in place to ensure staff were safe whilst supporting people. Where people required the use of aids for safe moving and handling, risk assessments were in place to support staff to be able to use this equipment safely.

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.

Recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had the necessary safety checks in place before starting work and completed a full induction. Staff member told us, “When I joined. I completed an induction. It explained the policies, safety, safeguarding and how to support clients properly” and “I completed an induction for 2 weeks with training and shadow shifts [observing experienced members of staff] to learn the role. It was very helpful.”

Staff received regular training and competency checks to ensure they were skilled to carry out care tasks. People and their relatives told us, “Staff are well trained”, “My [relative] has oxygen breathing equipment and staff know how to use it” and “Staff are very well trained and they're always so polite and so considerate.”

Staff had opportunities for supervision [one to one support sessions with their line manager]. A staff member commented, “We have supervisions every 3 months with the deputy manager or manager. We talk about work or any problems. It is helpful.”

The provider had systems in place to monitor staffing levels and ensure people received their visits as required. An electronic system was used to determine staffing levels, issue staff rotas and deploy staff to people’s care visits. People and their relatives told us, “They [staff] are always very punctual [for care visits]”, “I have a regular lady [visiting] who is very caring” and “[Relative] has regular carers.”

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 received training in infection prevention and control and told us personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available to them. A staff member told us, “PPE such as gloves, aprons, and masks are provided. I always use PPE when needed to protect the service user and myself and to reduce the risk of infection.”

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.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and medication administration records (MARs) were completed daily. Relatives told us, “[Staff] give [relative] their medication and there have been no problems” and “They [staff] deal with [relative’s] medication, [relative] has a blister pack and there have been no issues with this.”

Staff were trained to administer medicines. Staff had to undertake training before they could administer medicines and received competency checks to ensure they administered medicines safely. Staff told us, “I am trained to administer medication safely and have done the medication training” and “The manager or senior observes us [administering medicines] during spot checks to make sure medication is given correctly. I have an assessment 2 times a year.”

People told us staff applied their prescribed creams as required. However, prescribed creams were recorded on a separate cream chart and reports were not always complete. The provider was aware of this issue through their internal quality monitoring functions and had implemented actions to drive improvements.