Helping Hands Ellesmere Port

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff worked closely with people to ensure they were meaningfully involved in planning their care. Care plans reflected each person’s needs and preferences, based on discussions held with them. People told us that the support provided by staff was consistent with these plans, and this was evident in the care records.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s care was personalised to their individual needs, and when necessary, the registered manager worked closely with relatives and healthcare professionals to support positive outcomes.

Staff communicated effectively with one another and with others involved in people’s care, such as the GP, helping to ensure people did not have to repeat their story. Care records showed that relevant health and care professionals were contacted when people required their input.

Systems were in place to monitor and review care, ensuring that care plans remained current and that staff were kept up to date with the support each person needed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service made sure people received information and advice that was accurate and kept up to date.

Information was provided in ways that suited each person’s needs and preferences. Some people chose to have their relatives receive information alongside them or on their behalf, and this choice was respected. Relatives told us they felt well‑informed and spoke positively about the communication they received from the registered manager and the staff team.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had not received any recent complaints. A clear system was in place for logging, recording and investigating any concerns should they arise.

The provider actively sought feedback in a variety of ways and recorded compliments from people using the service. This helped ensure people’s experiences and views were recognised and valued.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff responded to each person’s needs and made sure the care and support they received reflected their individual preferences. Records showed that everyone had fair and equal access to services, including healthcare, and that support was provided when they needed it. People were treated with fairness, dignity and equity.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff and the management team recognised each person’s right to be treated fairly and equally, and to receive care that reflected their individual needs. Training records showed staff had completed equality and diversity training, supporting them to ensure people were not exposed to discriminatory behaviours or practices.

People experienced positive outcomes from the support they received. The level of care could be adjusted as their needs changed, ensuring they received the right amount of support at the right time. Records showed that when people required additional health or social care input, timely referrals were made to the appropriate services.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had end‑of‑life care plans in place. When someone did not feel ready to discuss this area, their wishes were clearly recorded and revisited at a time that felt right for them, ensuring they remained in control of decisions about their future.

At the time of our assessment, no one was receiving end‑of‑life care. However, the provider explained that if this support were needed, they would work closely with the person, their relatives and the relevant healthcare professionals to ensure care was delivered in line with the person’s wishes, values and preferences.