Helping Hands Hungerford

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

People told us they felt safe and protected from the risk of harm and abuse. There were systems in place to ensure risks to people were reduced. Staff received training appropriate to their role. People were involved in the formulation and review of their own risk assessments. Care plans contained clear and comprehensive guidance for staff to meet people's needs. People received support from people who knew them well, and there were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. However, recruitment processes were not always robust. There were effective systems in place to protect people from the risk of infection. Where people required support with medicines, the provider had robust systems in place to ensure people were supported safely.

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 and their relatives told us they felt staff had the training and skills required to meet their needs. One person told us "[Staff are] very good at giving care. I get what I need." People and their relatives told us they would speak with staff if they had any concerns. They knew who the managers were and told us they were approachable if they needed to speak with them. One relative told us, "If any concerns, I phone the Office and they respond straight away."

Where the registered manager identified shortfalls through audits, or where concerns were raised through feedback, or through investigations of incidents or accidents, the registered manager ensured staff received the appropriate support to learn from mistakes, to mitigate the risk of recurrence.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt confident about reporting any concerns or poor practice to their managers. One staff member told us, “Any issues or concerns that the carers or service users have are listened to and steps are taken to resolve them.”

People received continuity of care from staff who were familiar to them and knew them well. People's views were regularly requested from the registered manager. This information was used to inform and enhance the quality of the care provided. People's care and support was organised alongside people and their relatives, and where appropriate, the registered manager collaborated with relevant health and social care professionals.

Guidance from external professionals involved in people's care was communicated to staff and leaders, to ensure they were up to date with people's requirements. Feedback from partners in relation to the service was positive.

There were systems in place to promote the safety of people who use the service. The systems in place enabled the registered manager to analyse incidents and accidents, complaints and feedback from people, their relatives, and staff, to enhance the quality of the service provision. Leaders and staff had a strong awareness of the risks to people, and were proactive in identifying and managing risks.

There was sufficient guidance in place to guide staff to support people in lines with their needs and wishes. Staff and leaders worked collaboratively with each other, and external professionals to ensure the best outcomes for people. Most staff we spoke with told us they felt people received care from familiar and consistent care staff.

Systems and processes were now in place to notify us of significant events and other incidents that happened in the service without delay. The registered manager used staff one to one meetings and team meetings to enhance staff's knowledge of safeguarding to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place, and staff were familiar with the guidance. The registered manager provided safeguarding refresher training to staff regularly, and took a proactive and mindful approach to managing incidents where a risk to a person's safety was identified.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm or abuse. Staff knew how to raise concerns and felt confident their concerns would be listened to.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel safe with the, because I have got to know them. I am in capable hands." People were protected by the provider's safeguarding process and procedures. Staff and management took appropriate action in response to concerns.

Staff were aware of people's risks and knew how to manage them while promoting independence. Staff knew when to escalate concerns to the registered manager, who responded promptly to mitigate and manage risks.

People were involved in care planning and individual risks were assessed and managed in line with their needs, wishes and abilities. Where appropriate, people's relatives were also involved in care planning and care reviews. One relative told us, "2 managers came round and discussed [person’s] needs with [person] and the family." Another relative told us, "They were very helpful at the initial meeting. Each time [person] comes back from hospital it is reviewed."

The provider had robust processes in place to ensure people were provided with safe support. Care plans identified risks to people, and methods to mitigate risks while respecting people’s choices, and goals towards maintaining independence were established. Peoples’ care plans were up to date and included individualised and comprehensive guidance for staff to follow. Staff completed comprehensive care notes to document daily tasks, in line with people’s needs and risks. The registered manager completed regular audits of care notes to ensure any discrepancies or shortfalls in care were identified and rectified quickly.

People told us they felt safe in their own homes while being supported by staff who knew them well.

Care records contained comprehensive information relating to environmental risks within people's homes. This enabled staff to keep people safe.

Staff were provided with clear and comprehensive guidance of environmental risks, and how to manage them.

There was enough staff to provide support to people, and staff had the skills and knowledge to provide safe support. Staff received regular supervisions, and their competencies were assessed to undertake activities such as medicine administration and safe moving and handling. Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) checks were undertaken for all staff. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. However, evidence of conduct, and the reason for leaving, from previous roles of working with children/vulnerable adults was not requested for 2 staff members. Unexplained employment gaps were identified for 2 staff members. When this was raised with the registered manager, they took immediate action to address the shortfalls identified.

Most staff we spoke with told us they felt there were enough staff to provide care to people and were provided with the training required to meet peoples’ needs. Regular team meetings and supervisions were utilised to develop staff's knowledge and competencies. The registered manager told us staff informed the management team when they are available to work, and they endeavoured to allocate staff to people based on availability and in line with peoples’ needs and preferences.

People told us they felt there were enough staff to provide care. People’s feedback included, "[Staff] never rushed at all and always ask if there is anything else they can help with" and "[Staff] never give me the impression they are rushed."

The service had an infection control policy in place, and Personal Protective Equipment was available and provided to staff as needed.

People were protected from the risk of infection from staff who had received infection prevention control training and adhered to the provider's infection prevention control policy and procedure. People and relatives we spoke with confirmed staff adhered to infection control practices.

Care plans contained clear guidance for staff to manage any infection prevention control risks and most staff felt they received the training they needed to manage people's risks.

All staff received training in medicine administration and had their competencies assessed regularly.

Where people required support with medicines, they confirmed care staff met their responsibilities in relation to medication administration.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure medicines were safely managed. Regular audits of peoples' medicines administration records (MARs) were conducted, and shortfalls were swiftly addressed. Lessons learned were communicated to staff to ensure risks relating to medicines were mitigated.