Happy at Home Community Care Services Ltd.

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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to 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.

People said they knew how to raise any concerns and would be confident to do so. Comments included “I do phone through to the office, and I think they are proactive in dealing with problems,” “I’d call the office, they are very responsive and helpful” and “Staff are very responsive to any comments I make and will listen to everything I say.” Another person told us “If I have a problem, I tell (the care workers) and they sort it.” There were processes for reporting incidents and accidents. Staff were reminded in staff meetings to inform the office of these and any changes to the people they cared for. One member of staff commented “We are taught how to report, in case there are falls, accidents or unsafe care.” We saw a concern regarding medicines had been investigated and actions were taken to prevent a recurrence.

The provider worked well with external agencies to ensure people’s needs were met if they needed to move between services. A community professional told us the service had been “Very proactive in my involvements with them” regarding continuity of safe care. For example, during transitions such as hospital admissions and discharges.

People told us they felt safe using the service. Comments included “I feel very safe with them,” “Completely safe thank you, I am absolutely fine with them. They are very knowledgeable with my needs, and how to help me. They are very careful and gentle people,” and “We are very pleased with them. Safe and caring. They seem to be well trained.” Staff told us they completed training on safeguarding people. One member of staff told us “I have done my safeguarding training and know to report any concern.” None of the staff who provided feedback identified any concerns with the care they were expected to provide. The provider had systems in place to report concerns to the local authority safeguarding team. A community professional told us the provider had been “Very proactive in safeguarding a person’s interests and safety.”

Care plans identified risks to people’s safety and well-being and how these could be reduced. For example, assessments were in place to help people to reposition. Equipment which people needed to help with daily living tasks was included in the information in their care plans. Where people required two staff to assist them, we could see the service ensured two care workers were assigned to relevant home visits. A community professional told us risks were managed well. They said the service had “Raised concerns to me about the risks and have worked proactively to address them.”

The provider carried out risk assessments of people’s home environments, to ensure they were safe places for care to be carried out. These assessments included trip and slip hazards, exits in case of fire, whether there was sufficient space to provide the care required and location of stopcocks and fuse boxes. Measures were put in place if a risk to safety was identified.

People mostly spoke positively about staff. Comments included “They always arrive on time as planned and seem to understand what care I need and how to look after me” and “The staff work very hard and will always stay the full duration of their time if I need them to.” Other comments included “They are really very efficient and good and I call them the A Team.” Some of the 24 people we spoke with told us about different experiences of using the service. One person told us they experienced different quality of care from younger staff than “mature, experienced” care workers. Four people said staff did not stay the agreed amount of time which they paid the service for. Two people said timings of their visits were not what they had agreed to or which suited their needs. A community professional told us the service had sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. They commented “I have had a very positive experience with Happy at Home Community Care Services being able to change, increase and adapt the package of care with minimal notice.” Staff told us they received the support they needed. All said they had completed an induction when they first joined the service. Staff said they received supervision and had support from managers. They said they had enough time to provide care to people and had been given the training they needed. Staff had been recruited using robust procedures. There were systems in place for reviewing staff performance before they were confirmed in post and also for on-going supervision and checking of staff performance. Staff completed a range of training to help acquire the skills they needed to support people safely. This included moving and handling, first aid, falls prevention and dementia care.

The feedback we received indicated people using the service were satisfied with cleanliness and did not have concerns about infection prevention and control. Comments included “No concerns,” “They wear gloves and masks to keep infection risks down” and “They are very aware of infection control and used extra PPE because of Covid.” Where one person told us they had concerns, we fed this back to the provider in an anonymous manner. Staff told us they were provided with the personal protective equipment (PPE) they needed. They also told us they regularly washed their hands when providing personal care. Comments included “We wear PPE in every call, after finishing we dispose in a proper way” and “I consistently use PPE (such as gloves, masks and aprons) while giving personal care or while handling contaminated materials and dispose of them properly. I also make sure I wash my hands thoroughly before and after providing care.” There were procedures for managing infection prevention and control. Staff were also required to complete training on this subject.

Most people we spoke with did not require support with managing their medicines. Where they did, feedback included “I have medication and they will always make sure I have taken it as I should” and “I’ve just had a visit from the manager and they went through the meds list to check it was all good.” Another person told us “The carers do all her meds. They recently spotted that the medication delivered from the chemist was wrong, it was all for a different person. They contacted the chemist and got it sorted. I’m so pleased they spotted it.” Care plans provided information about which medicines people were prescribed, where medicines were located in their homes and who was responsible for obtaining repeat prescriptions. There were procedures for managing people’s medicines and competency checks to make sure staff handled them safely. Staff told us they had completed training and had been assessed to handle medicines. We were made aware of an error where care workers did not prompt someone to take some of their prescribed medicine. This had been dealt with by the provider. Guidance had been put in place where people had been prescribed medicines to be taken ‘as required,’ to ensure care workers administered these in a consistent and appropriate manner.