Happy 2 Help Community Care 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

There were systems in place to promote safe care and support. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and well managed. People were involved in decisions about their care and people’s preferences were respected. Care visits were well organised and staff were recruited safely and well trained. Medicines were managed and administered 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 told us the service was aware of their risks with actions implemented to keep them safe. A relative said, "[Person] had some choking issues about 2 years ago. The carers make sure her food is cut up and that she is served a soft diet."

The registered manager and senior staff told us they had regular communication with people who used the service and used this to gather people’s feedback about the care and support they received.

The registered manger promoted a learning culture. Processes were in place to ensure thorough investigations took place for any incidents or concerns. In-depth reviews were completed to look at any lessons or improvements that could be made. Staff were involved in these processes.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

All of the people spoken with told us they felt safe with the service and the staff who visit their home. One person said, "The carers have a very professional and encouraging attitude, they help me into the shower and are aware of the potential dangers. They stand immediately outside the shower, very attentive and ready to help at any time”.

People were supported by staff who were trained and understood the types of abuse to look out for to keep them safe from avoidable harm. Staff had access to clear guidance and were clear on the actions required to escalate any concerns. They told us all concerns were investigated to protect people and help them to live safely.

Systems were in place for the identification, investigation and reporting of safeguarding’s. We checked and found the service was compliant with, and acting under The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the requirement to ensure people were supported to understand and agree to their care. 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. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

People and their relatives told us the service maintained good communications with checks in place to ensure care and support continued to meet their changing needs. A relative said, "We are involved in the care planning, we have 6 monthly reviews and there is a reassessment planned , it is all recorded in the care plan."

Everybody receiving a service had a care plan which recorded known risks with information for staff to follow to keep them safe. A staff member said, “We are very meticulous about the management and recording of risks. We proactively update information. For example, if a person needs to go to hospital key information is recorded to manage and control known risks and respond to new ones.”

Risks to people were identified and well managed. People were involved in decisions about their care. Risk assessments were person centred and reflected what was important to and for the person. They gave clear guidance to staff on what people’s needs were, and how they wanted their care and support to be provided. Risks were regularly reviewed to ensure information was accurate and up to date. Where required, staff supported people to attend health appointments and liaised with other health and social care staff

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People whom we spoke with told us they received care from regular staff who knew and understood their needs. They said staff generally arrived on time and stayed for the required period of time.

People were supported from enough skilled staff to meet their needs. Staff told us they valued the small team and the variety of skill sets available to support people. Staff told us they valued a range of training, supervision and support to carry out their roles.

Safe recruitment practice was followed to ensure only staff with the right skills and experience were employed. Enough staff were deployed to ensure people received care and support according to their assessed needs. Care was planned to minimise staff travel and records showed that visits took place within agreed times for people. Staff were well supported and staff received the training they required to undertake their roles effectively. We saw that where people had specific medical conditions training was arranged to ensure staff followed best practice guidance.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they had no concerns when care staff supported them to take their medicines. One person said, “Carers do my medication, it comes in trays, I always check afterwards and I am confident that they give medication correctly”.

People were supported to take their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff confirmed people were involved in any reviews to ensure they remained relevant. Any changes were quickly recorded and staff discussed the training and checks they were required to complete before supporting people to take their medicines; following best practice guidance.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff received medicines training and had their competency to administer medicines regularly checked. People’s consent to support with medicines had been sought and risk assessments relating to medicines were in place. Protocols detailed procedures for administration of ‘as required’ medicines. For example, medicines to provide pain relief.