Sams Helping Hands Ltd

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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.

Staff had not received specific training in relation to one person's modified dietary needs. We have made a recommendation about provider revisiting the training needed in relation to modified diets, and ensures staff are confident and competent to apply their learning in their practice.

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; however, the systems in the service did not always support this practice. The provider had no specific mental capacity assessments in place. The registered manager implemented mental capacity assessments during the inspection process. We have made a recommendation about the provider reviewing their systems in place to work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Care plans did not consider people's end of life wishes. We have made a recommendation about the provider reviewing their systems for people's end of life wishes.

The service did not always make statutory notifications to the CQC when required.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. Care plans were person-centred and were focused on promoting people's independency and empowering their lives. The care provided was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and upheld their human rights.

People were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were trusted to keep them safe. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. Staff received training in infection prevention and control and told us Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was readily available to them.

Recruitment checks were robust to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. The provider had systems in place to monitor staffing levels and ensure people received their visits. People told us staff were on time for their visits and if on an occasion staff were delayed, they would be informed.

People's needs were assessed prior to starting with the service and care plans were developed according to people's needs. People and relatives were involved in their care planning. People's views and decisions about care were incorporated when their care packages were devised. People were involved in making decisions about their day to day care. People's independency was encouraged where possible and this was reflected in people's care plans.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a commitment to people, and they displayed person- centred values. The registered manager had regular contact with people. Relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. Staff praised the registered manager and wider management team, they felt supported in their roles.