Helping Hands Ellesmere Port

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Comprehensive needs assessments were completed with each person before they began using the service. These assessments considered all relevant aspects of a person’s health, wellbeing and communication needs and were carried out in partnership with the individual, their relatives (where appropriate), and relevant health and social care professionals. This helped staff develop a clear and accurate understanding of each person’s needs from the outset.

People’s diverse characteristics and identities, including cultural background, religious beliefs, communication preferences and sexuality, were explored sensitively as part of the assessment process. This supported the development of personalised plans that reflected what was important to each person.

Information gathered during the pre‑assessment stage was used to create detailed risk assessments and support plans that promoted people’s safety while also encouraging independence. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to balance risk with people’s goals and preferences.

Assessments were reviewed regularly with people and their relatives to ensure support remained relevant and responsive to any changes in need.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Assessments were completed using nationally recognised assessment processes and covered key areas relevant to home‑care, such as mobility, medication support and risks within the home environment. This helped ensure people received the right level of support while maintaining as much independence as possible.

People and relatives described staff as reliable and knowledgeable about their needs. Staff told us they had access to up‑to‑date care plans and information that enabled them to deliver safe and consistent support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Skilled and competent staff were able to meet people’s individual needs effectively, supported by shared knowledge, clear communication pathways and a strong culture of teamwork. Staff had access to detailed, up‑to‑date information about each person, including daily records that captured key events, changes and observations from each visit. This ensured staff maintained a continuous understanding of people’s needs and were able to provide consistent, personalised care. Staff told us that having clear, accessible and accurate information supported their confidence in their roles and enabled them to provide high‑quality support.

Information sharing was well embedded within the service. Regular supervisions, team meetings and observation sessions provided structured opportunities to review people’s progress, update support plans and identify any emerging concerns. Staff also worked closely with healthcare professionals and external agencies, ensuring clinical advice, specialist input and multidisciplinary recommendations were incorporated into people’s care.

Overall, the service demonstrated strong teamwork and effective partnership working, ensuring people benefited from safe, consistent and holistic care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were supported to prevent avoidable deterioration in their health. Staff regularly monitored people’s health and wellbeing and took prompt action when they identified any concerns or when someone became unwell. Established referral pathways enabled staff to seek additional support when needed, for example from a GP or other healthcare professionals.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Feedback from people and their relatives was consistently positive. Family members said staff supported their loved ones to achieve good outcomes, including making sure they could access the right health professionals when needed. This ensured people received timely advice and contributed to their overall well‑being.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People told us staff asked for their consent before providing any support. One person said, “Staff always call out to let me know they have arrived and ask if it is okay to come in. They always ask that it’s okay before they start any personal care and they keep me covered up.”

Staff had completed relevant training and understood the importance of gaining consent before delivering care. The service had an advocacy policy in place to support people who may need help expressing their views.

Systems were in place to ensure people understood the care and treatment being offered, enabling them to make informed decisions. Information was provided in formats people could understand, and their consent to specific decisions was clearly recorded in their care records.

The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed when required. Where individuals lacked capacity to make certain decisions, staff acted in their best interests in line with legal requirements. At the time of the assessment, no one using the service had a court of protection authorised to deprive them of their liberty.