Helping Hands Hertford

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

Risks to people’s health, wellbeing and safety were identified and assessed. Whilst we noted some inconsistencies between two people’s assessments and their support plans, any potential impact on people was minimised by staff knowledge and awareness. Systems were in place to ensure staff were deployed consistently. There were occasions where staff arrived late or early to provide care, which the registered manager confirmed was an area they were focussed on improving; however, people and their relatives gave positive feedback about staff describing them as kind, helpful and friendly and they expressed no concerns. Safe recruitment processes were followed, and staff received a range of training. Spot checks, supervision and appraisals were completed to support all staff. Safeguarding processes in place were effective. There were systems in place to report, record, and subsequently analyse any untoward events that might occur. Where referrals were needed to outside agencies, including the local authority, these were completed in a timely manner. People were supported to maintain a safe environment in their homes, both for themselves and staff. Infection prevention and control measures were in place, alongside and up to date policy. Where people required it, medicines were managed safely and administered in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions. Checks and audits were in place.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People felt the care and support they received was safe and that they could speak up if they had any concerns. One person told us, “I feel safe at all times. They are good at their job, and they are friendly.” A relative told us, “Yes, [they are] safe. They have a good relationship with [them], [they] trust them (staff) completely. I have every confidence in them.”

Staff felt confident with the safety measures in place. One member of staff told us, “Yes, I feel safe working for Helping Hands. I have not experienced or witnessed any accidents, but I feel if I did, I would have the right support.” Another member of staff told us, “Since I have begun working for Helping Hands, I have always felt safe in the working field. I have come across a few normal incidents, but they were all dealt with professionally and management always follows up.” Staff were not all aware of any lessons learnt, however confirmed they knew that any incidents, accidents or untoward events were reviewed by senior staff.

The provider had a system in place to review any incidents and events. This included an analysis of any reports from care staff and identifying any action needed. Staff were informed of action or improvements needed via emails, an internal messaging system and newsletters. We shared feedback with the registered manager that staff were not all aware of the lessons learnt process. They confirmed they would reiterate the measures in place to all staff.

People experienced a robust assessment process before starting to receive care. One person told us, “They did lots of risk assessments around my home to make sure I am safe. I didn’t get given a care plan at the start as my needs were very basic. Over time they have needed to give me more support.” A relative told us, “[Person] has been fully involved in all the discussions regarding his care plan.”

Staff told us that they were aware that assessments were carried out and were provided with information before they started to provide care to people. One staff member told us, “I like to get to know people when they first receive our service by talking to them about their likes and dislikes, I read lots about their background and family on their care plan so I know about them before I start the visit. I contribute to care plans by completing activities and giving feedback, if there is anything the service user is happy or unhappy with, I would let the office know and things can be amended.” Another member of staff told us, “I go to the service users Support/Care Plan and normally do shadow shifts till I am confident and knowledgeable of the service required.”

Feedback from partners was limited. From the evidence provided, we saw there were systems in place for information sharing between services via email however we unable to fully confirm the involvement of all partners. The registered manager informed us that many people privately funded their own care, but confirmed they would seek ways to ensure partners views and guidance were evident within assessments and plans of care where applicable.

The provider had a robust system in place to ensure that people and their relatives were involved in the assessment and planning of care. This system was supported by up-to-date policies.

People told us they felt safe receiving care and support from staff. They, and their relatives confirmed they were aware of how to raise any concerns. One person told us, “I would speak to the manager as I know [them] very well. [They are] very supportive and helpful. I did raise one concern [description]. The manager has sorted it out.” A relative told us, “We have never had any concerns, but if I needed to speak to somebody, I would call the office.”

Staff told us they knew how to respond to, and report, any concerns in relation to allegations of abuse. One staff member told us, “If I thought abuse was happening, I would immediately notify my manager. I would complete a notification form.” Another staff member told us, “I would immediately report a safeguarding issue with my manager.” Staff had received safeguarding training, alongside competency and knowledge checks during spot checks by senior staff.

The provider had an effective system in place for staff to record and report any concerns via a ‘notifications’ system. Any safeguarding required to be made to the local authority were done in a timely manner and a safeguarding log maintained. This enable to the provider to have oversight of referrals made, actions to be taken and any outcome, once received.

We found that one person had two risk assessments which had not been reviewed in the past 12 months and there were some inconsistencies between assessments and support plans for the same person and one other. The registered manager confirmed they would address the anomalies identified however, they confirmed that some of the inconsistencies were as a result of limitations in the pre-populated text options within the computerised care planning software. However, people told us that they were supported with managing risks. One person told us, “The carers are aware of the risks and if they have any concerns they call people in the family straight away, they are proactive.” Another person told us, “‘The carers check every day that I am safe in my home, they are always looking around for hazards.” Relatives also gave positive feedback. One relative told us, “[Name of person] had risk assessments. They (staff) make sure that furniture has been moved to make [them] safe. They (staff) also moved rugs so [they don’t] fall. [Person] has a care plan in place which is online, it is on their phones, so the carers know what to do each day.”

Staff were knowledgeable about risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing and the actions they needed to take to reduce these. They confirmed they were able to escalate any changes to risk or concerns with senior staff. One staff member told us, “I contact the office and let them know if something within the care plan has changed or if I feel there is a risk to safety etcetera. For example, frayed carpet that may cause them (a person) to trip.”

The provider had a system in place to assess risks when a person began using the service. This included all aspects of the person’s health, safety and wellbeing where they required support from staff. People’s care and associated risks were reviewed. However, we noted that the outcomes of reviews did not always lead to consistent actions. For example, following one review it was determined that a person required an update of their support plan due to a change in risk presented by managing their own nutritional needs. Changes has not been consistently made throughout their records. The registered manager confirmed they would review this action and ensure that it was completed.

People and their relatives confirmed that support was given to manage risks in people’s homes. This included equipment used to support their independence such as mobility equipment. One person told us, “The only equipment I have at the moment is a stairlift. They know how to use it and they make sure that when I am using it everything is safe.” A relative told us, “[Relative] has a stairlift which the staff use very well. The OT has said [person] needs a lift to get [them] in and out of the bath. The agency have said staff will receive training to use it properly when it is installed.”

Staff confirmed that they felt safe working with people and were supported with the equipment needed. One staff member told us, “Yes, I have all the equipment I need and PPE is always available from the Office.”

Assessments of potential risks in people’s homes were completed and reviewed. There were systems in place for staff to report any concerns, which enabled the provider to take prompt action to ensure the safety of both people and staff.

People and their relatives told us they felt there were enough staff and care visits were made in a timely manner. However, when we reviewed call time records, there were a number of occasions where visits were late, or staff arrived outside of the planned times. The registered manager confirmed that the timeliness of calls had improved in recent months, but remained an area of improvement they were focusing on. People gave us positive feedback when speaking about staff. One person told us, “I have the same carers visiting me all the time. I have got to know them very well, which is good. I feel at ease with them.” Another person told us, “The staff are marvellous; they are well trained. They know my needs.”

Staff gave positive feedback regarding the overall support and training they received. One staff member told us, “I have a good experience with management I feel we are well looked after as a team. If there is anything I need or questions I have, it is quickly answered, and my needs are met.” Another staff member told us, “Training is always available on [Name of online learning platform] as well as in the office and encouraged.” Some staff did share some issues with their rotas and schedules, which were consistent with our findings. One staff member told us, “There have been times where I have little travel time and it is unrealistic, causing stress and worry. It has improved recently.” Another staff member told us, “There are times when calls overlap, or you don’t have enough commute time to get from one call from another.”

The provider used computerised call scheduling software to deploy staff. We saw that they analysed completed call data to review the duration of call visits, along with the timeliness of staff. We reviewed two weeks of analysis that had been completed which confirmed that there were a number of calls that the registered manager had identified as being early, late or outside of the planned duration. Many of these instances did not have any explanation or reason recorded. As described previously, the registered manager confirmed that the timeliness of calls was an area they were focused on improving. Staff received a wide training of training and were supported in their roles by spot checks during their calls and supervision meetings. Where additional training or support was identified, we saw this was arranged. However, we identified that the service was supporting people who were living with mental health conditions and training records indicated that staff had not received training specific to this. When we raised this with the registered manager, they immediate assigned training to staff for their completion. Staff recruitment was safe and all essential pre-employment checks were completed prior to a staff member starting work.

People were supported to maintain the cleanliness of their homes and manage the risks of infection, where this was an identified need and agreed within their planned care. Risk assessments were completed where required.

Staff were aware of infection risks and had completed training. They confirmed that infection prevention and control was regularly discussed with them, and that PPE was available for them to use as needed.

Spot checks on IPC were completed regularly, alongside audits. The provider has an up-to-date policy in place and guidance available for staff.

People told us they received their medicines as needed. One person told us, “They give me medication. They tell me what it is for. They pick it up from the chemist for me. I get my medication when I need it.” One relative told us, “The company is in contact with the doctor, so they now organise all [person’s] medication and have it delivered. They have been marvellous; our expectations have been met above and beyond. If they have concerns over his medication, they get in contact with the doctor.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding around the safe management of medicines. They confirmed they had received training and their competency checked during spot checks.

People’s preferences as to how they wished to be supported with the management and administration of their medicines was included in care plans, where this was an identified need. There were regular audits of medicines and associated records.