Hinds Care and 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

We assessed 3 quality statements in the safe key question and found 2 breaches of regulations in relation to safe care and effective staffing. This was because the provider did not always assess risks to people’s health and safety. Care plans and risk assessments did not have enough information to guide staff to manage risks that had been identified. The training records reviewed showed there were several gaps. Staff did not always have the required level of training the provider considered mandatory to carry out their role effectively. However, staff were recruited safely. There was an effective system in place to manage and monitor any safeguarding concerns.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and were well looked after.

Staff and leaders were able to explain the process for safeguarding people.

There was a safeguarding process in place. We saw evidence of how a safeguarding referral, had been made and managed. This showed the process was effective. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. The provider had policies and procedures in place. This meant staff have had the necessary training and guidance to understand the actions they needed to take if they came across safeguarding incidents or allegations of abuse.

People told us they were involved in care planning and reviews.

The registered manager told us they visited people in their home to set up the initial care plan. They said they observed and got to know each person. They then recorded their findings and developed a care plan tailored for each person. Staff were able to tell us about each person's needs and how they managed any risks to their health and wellbeing.

The process for involving people to manage risks was not robust enough. The care plans and risks assessments did not contain enough information to ensure staff had the right level of guidance to carry out their role effectively. For example, in one risk assessment a risk of harm was identified due to moving and handling. However, there was very little detail about the equipment used or the way a person could be transferred safely. In another example, a risk of choking was identified. However, very little information was provided to staff to as far as possible mitigate the risk. Risks of harm to people were somewhat mitigated due to staff knowledge of people's needs.

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

Relatives we spoke with told us they found the care agency good and caring. However, one relative told us that staff had not turned up to provide the care on 2 occasions. Once this had been brought to the managers attention by the relative it was addressed and did not happen again.

The registered manager has an open-door policy. They stated that they have regular meetings with staff and staff can approach them anytime. There is also an on-call duty phone which can be used at any time. Staff also told us they felt well supported and had regular meeting where they could seek guidance and feedback.

The training matrix we reviewed showed training courses the provider considered mandatory; however, we found gaps in relation to some of the courses. For example, 4 out of 7 staff had completed first aid training. In another example, 2 people’s care plans showed they required prescribed creams to be applied by the care workers, however not all staff had received medicine training. The training of staff was inconsistent. This meant there was a risk people might be cared for by staff who were not always adequately skilled or experienced placing them at risk of harm. The provider had an effective system in place to recruit staff. Background checks including criminal records checks were carried out. This meant people could be confident that staff had been vetted appropriately before beginning their employment.

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.

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