We carried out a review of the data available to us about Helping Hands Chelmsford on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Helping Hands Chelmsford, you can give feedback on this service.
Helping Hands Chelmsford is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 32 people at the time of the inspection. At the last inspection, the service covered a large geographical area which has since been reduced with the opening of other branches of the company, providing a smaller staff allocation area to improve the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives told us they felt safe using the service and were confident that if they raised a concern it would be dealt with appropriately by the registered manager.
People appreciated receiving care from regular care staff who usually arrived on time. If they were going to be delayed, people were notified by telephone. This had been a concern at the last inspection but had now been resolved. A new system had been introduced to monitor visit times and was audited by management.
Care plans were person-centred, and people and relatives told us they were involved in their planning of care. People told us they were treated with respect and their dignity promoted. People and relatives described the staff as very good and caring.
Staff recruitment processes were robust. Staff received training and people told us staff were skilled. Senior personnel made spot checks to assess staff competency and to provide additional training if required.
People received their medicines as prescribed and people confirmed that staff used PPE appropriately to reduce the risk of infection. The service worked with health and social care professionals and people told us they were confident that if they required medical assistance staff would refer to the relevant professional.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The registered manager recognised people using the service may experience loneliness and isolation, and the management team had been working closely with the organisations in the local community to provide people with advice and support.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 27 February 2019).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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 we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People’s experience of using this service:
People did not always receive care and support from regular staff, and some had experienced a missed or a late visit. The way the registered provider managed medicine needed to be improved. We have made a recommendation about medicine management. Risk assessments needed to be developed to ensure they covered all areas of risk. Some care plans did not always have the details of key professionals recorded. Some staff were unclear about their understanding of the mental capacity act.
People did not always receive support in a responsive way. For some, communication needed to improve. Information did not consider people’s communication needs. The provider had a complaints process in place.
The service had a registered manager in post. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable. Most people did not know who they were. Spot checks and audits were completed and surveys had been sent out to obtain people’s views.
People continued to receive care from staff who were trained to meet people’s needs. People told us they 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. Staff supported people to maintain a healthy diet, in line with their assessed needs. People were supported to access health care if this was needed.
Staff were kind and caring. People had built positive relationships with staff. People were supported and encouraged by staff to make decisions as to how their needs were met. Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s privacy dignity and independence.
More information is the detailed report below.
Rating at last inspection: This service was last rated Good. (30 May 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive, and inspect the service, if risk is indicated.
The service has a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our visit. This was to ensure documentation and people were accessible on the day of our inspection.
People were complimentary about the service they received from Helping Hands Chelmsford. People’s needs were assessed and appropriate information was given to people before the service commenced.
Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were clear about the actions they would take to help protect people. Where safeguarding concerns had been identified the service had made the appropriate referrals and was open and transparent. Risk assessments had been completed to help staff to support people with everyday risks and help to keep them safe.
Systems were in place to assist people with the management of their medication and to help ensure people received their medication as prescribed. Recruitment checks had been carried out before staff started work to ensure that they were suitable to work in a care setting. Staff told us that they felt well supported to carry out their work and had received regular support and training.
There were sufficient numbers of staff, with the right competencies, skills and experience available to help meet the needs of the people who used the service.
Where needed people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to help meet their nutritional needs and staff knew who to speak with if they had any concerns around people’s nutrition. People were supported by staff to maintain good healthcare and were assisted to gain access to healthcare providers where possible.
People had agreed to their care and been asked how they would like this provided. People said they had been treated with dignity and respect and that staff provided their care in a kind and caring manner.
The registered manager had a good understanding of Mental Capacity Act 2005 and who to approach if they had any concerns and the appropriate government body if people were not able to make decisions for themselves.
People knew who to raise complaints or concerns to. The service had a clear complaints procedure in place and people had been provided with this information as part of the assessment process. This included information on the process and also any timespan for response. We saw that complaints had been appropriately investigated and recorded.
The service had an effective quality assurance system and had regular contact with people who used the service. People felt listened to and that their views and opinions had been sought. The quality assurance system was effective and improvements had been made as a result of learning from people’s views and opinions.