Background to this inspection
Updated
3 April 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
One inspector carried out this inspection.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and specialist housing. It provides a service to older and younger adults.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. There was a manager in place who had started the application process with the CQC of becoming the registered manager.
Prior to the inspection, the CQC received concerns from a person using the service who said that the management and staff were not understanding of their health condition, and their care and support needs.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 2 days’ notice of the inspection site visit because it is small and we needed to be sure that staff would be available.
Inspection site visit activity started on 4 March 2019 and ended on 6 March 2019. We visited the office location on 4 and 6 March 2019 to see the registered manager and care staff; to review care records, staff records and policies and procedures. We spoke with five people using the service by telephone to ask for their feedback on 5 March 2019.
What we did:
Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service to aid with our inspection planning. This included notifications. Notifications are incidents that the registered manager must notify us of. We contacted other health and social care organisations such as representatives from local authority contracts team, quality improvement team, the safeguarding team, and Healthwatch (an independent organisation for people who use health and social care services). This was to ask their views about the service provided. This helped us plan our inspection.
During inspection we: information gathered:
• Spoke with five people who received the regulated activity of personal care.
• Spoke to the head of home care, the area manager and the registered manager.
• Spoke with three care workers called ‘hourly carers’ within the service.
• Looked at three people’s care records and corresponding risk assessments and monitoring records including medicine administration records (MARs).
• Looked at records of accidents, incidents, compliments and complaints.
• Looked at three staff files including all aspects of recruitment, supervisions, competency checks and training records.
• Looked governance records that monitored the service including action plans.
• Looked at organisational oversight audits and action plans.
• Looked at surveys completed by people using the service and staff.
• Looked at the provider’s newsletters, memos re learning from incidents and accidents, and policies and procedures.
• Looked the provider’s statement of purpose and service user guide and the provider’s business contingency plan.
Updated
3 April 2019
About the service:
Helping Hands Peterborough is a domiciliary care service that was giving personal care to 28 people at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People told us they liked the care and support they received from staff. Staff encouraged people to complete tasks independently, or with minimal support where possible. This was done in a caring and compassionate way.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to report their concerns internally and externally to local safeguarding authorities. Risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and monitored. Guidance was in place for staff on how to support people with these risks. This included how to evacuate a person’s house or flat in the case of an emergency.
Staff promoted and respected people`s dignity and privacy. Staff had guidance on how to support people effectively in care plans that were individual to each person. Staff supported people with their prescribed creams in a safe manner. People told us they made decisions about what medicines they took. However, there was no guidance for staff to know signs of any potential medicine side effects.
The registered manager kept people`s personal information confidentially stored within the office. People, their relatives and advocates were involved in discussions about their care.
There were enough staff to meet people`s needs. People told us they had no concerns about staff timekeeping when attending their care visits. As much as possible the same group of staff supported people to provide consistency. This was people’s preference as they told us staff got to know them, how they liked to be cared for and their likes and dislikes. People were kept safe from risks of infection due to methods used by the staff supporting them, in line with their training.
Checks were in place before a new member of staff was deemed suitable to work with the people they supported. Staff induction into their role was based on a nationally recognised training programme called the Care Certificate. Staff had supervisions and spot checks to discuss their progress and training in subjects considered mandatory by the provider to develop their skills and knowledge. Staff learnt lessons from incidents and near misses that happened both within the organisation and within the local service.
People, their relatives, and advocates gave feedback on the quality of the service provided. People`s concerns were listened to, investigated and resolved where possible. The provider`s governance systems and processes had improved and identified areas of the service where improvements were needed. The registered manager completed internal audits to ensure the service provided to people was effective and safe.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection:
This is the first inspection of the service since they registered with the CQC on December 2017.
Why we inspected:
The service was inspected as it had not had an inspection since registering with the CQC.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.