We carried out a review of the data available to us about Helping Hands Bromley 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 Bromley, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm as risk management plans were in place and provided guidance to staff to support people safely. There were enough staff available to deliver safe support to people and people received their care visits as planned. People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew of actions to take to safeguard people from abuse. Lessons were learned from incidents and accidents. Staff followed infection control procedures to reduce risks of infection.
People’s care needs were assessed following best practice guidance. People were supported to meet their nutritional and hydration needs. Staff supported people to access healthcare services to maintain good health. Staff liaised with other agencies to ensure people’s care and support were effectively planned and delivered. Staff were supported to be effective in their roles through induction, training, supervision and appraisals.
The registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. 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 consented to their care before it was delivered. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and gave them choice and control over their care and support. People were supported to promote and maintain their independence.
People received support to meet their individual needs and requirements. People’s care plans were comprehensive and provided guidance to staff on how to support their needs. Staff treated people as individuals and promoted their religious and cultural beliefs.
There was a complaints procedure available. People and their relatives knew how to make a complain if they were unhappy with the service. Complaints were addressed in line with the provider’s procedure. The views of people were sought and used to improve the service. Quality checks and audits took place to assess the service delivered. The provider worked in partnership with other organisations to develop the service.
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 Good (published 21/06/2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to review information we receive about the service until we return to visit as part of our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
The service did not have a registered manager in post. The previous registered manager left in December 2016. 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 regional manager (Head of Homecare) told us that for the recruitment of a new manager interviews were scheduled for the week following our inspection. At the time of our inspection the service was managed by a full time interim manager and supported by the regional manager. The manager demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and the needs of the staffing team.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff. The service had clear procedures to recognise and respond to abuse. All staff completed safeguarding training. Senior staff completed risk assessments for people who used the service which provided guidance for staff to minimise identified risks. The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce reoccurrence.
The service had enough staff to support people and carried out satisfactory recruitment checks before they started working. The service had an on call system to make sure staff had support outside the office working hours. Staff supported people so they took their medicines safely. The service provided an induction and training, and supported staff through regular supervision to help them undertake their role.
People’s consent was sought before care was provided. The manager was aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At the time of inspection they told us they were not supporting any people who did not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Care records we saw confirmed this.
Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People’s relatives coordinated health care appointments to meet people’s needs, and staff were available to support people to access health care appointments if needed.
Staff supported people in a way which was caring, respectful, and protected their privacy and dignity. Staff developed people’s care plans that were tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly and were up to date.
The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints. People knew how to complain and would do so if necessary. The service sought the views of people who used the services. Staff felt supported by the acting manager. The service had an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received.