Helping Hands Aylesbury

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 63 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us their needs were assessed before they began receiving care and support from the service. Relatives told us, “We went through a detailed assessment when we started” and “The assessment was fine”.

However, we noted not all care plans had been updated to reflect people’s current needs. One person had received support from the service since January 2026, and their care plan was not up to date. In addition, people and their relatives did not know if they had received a copy of their care plan. We have provided this feedback to the registered manager to take action.

Staff had confidence in the information they had available to them. One member of staff told us, “All care plans have clear instructions regarding risks in the placement and about existing control measures. Most of the time I feel I have enough detailed information available to me to manage risks”.

Staff told us they knew what to do when a person’s condition changed. Comments included, “I take people’s health care concerns very seriously, and if I notice any deterioration I notify my manager and we make plans to seek medical advice as soon as possible”.

The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure staff were frequently reporting changes to people’s needs and concerns regarding their wellbeing.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider did not routinely ensure they followed best practice guidance for administering and recording of prescribed medicines and care plans did not always provide best practice guidance on skin integrity. For instance, on person who was at risk of skin breakdown had not had an assessment of the risk of pressure damage since 2023.

However, staff told us they received training in key areas such as diabetes and modified diets as examples. In addition, staff received bespoke clinical training to enable them to support people with complex needs. This training was monitored closely and only available to a few established staff who were confident supporting people with complex needs. One member of staff told us, “My client has low salt diet, l don’t put salt in [person’s] food, [person] eats fruits and vegetables everyday”.

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.

Staff spoke about how they worked together to build respectful, supportive relationships with the people they cared for. They said they had access to personal histories, preferences and goals, which helped them to provide more personalised care. One member of staff told us “I feel very lucky to often support the same clients on a daily and weekly basis. Over the past two years, I feel very connected to them and understand their likes and dislikes. I’ve also got to know their families and this helps with understanding their backgrounds and personal goals.”

Systems and processes were in place for staff to share important information with the office staff to support any changes or action required. On the second day of our site visit we noted staff had advised the office about a new change in a person. Office staff made a referral to the district nursing service to visit the person.

One member of staff told us “Lately my client needed a lot of attention from the district nurses, and we worked together superbly. I actually learned a lot from them and they were looking forward to coming to the place, because they knew I would be of help”. Another staff member told us “Every single time, I have asked a question, there has been help and actions taken. I work alone though I have never felt isolated”.

Staff told us they had opportunities to attend team meetings and felt able to contribute to the meeting.

The registered manager told us communication was good with staff, and they had daily contact with the staff. A weekly update email was sent out to all staff, this included guidance, appreciation and service updates. One member of staff told us, “I do feel there is a culture of collaboration, and we all work well as a team and keep each other informed and up to date via our work [social media group], which I feel is very effective in getting information and answers quickly.”

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.

People and their relatives told us how staff have encouraged them to maintain their health and access healthcare when needed. People’s relatives told us, “The carer sorts out GP appointments and will sort out whatever health things he needs” and “If [person] needs an ambulance, they'll call 999 themselves.”

Staff told us they were keen to support people make healthier choices. Staff gave us examples of people’s restricted diets and how they supported them to adhere to them. In addition, staff told us they worked closely with community healthcare professionals. One staff member told us, “In my experience, communication, coordination and collaboration between the service and external partners is excellent”. Another staff member told us, “I monitor clients’ wellbeing during visits and report any deterioration or concerns following escalation procedures to ensure timely action.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We found care plans were not always clear and gave staff clear information on how to manage people’s conditions. For instance, people who were diabetic did not always have information available to staff on warning signs of high or low blood sugar.

We had identified some care plans and risk assessments had not been updated, we asked the provider to ensure they were updated, however when we reviewed the updated version we found there was still improvements which could be made to ensure the records were accurate and up to date.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

The service was not supporting any person with a court of protection order. The registered manager confirmed if a third party wanted to commission a service from them, they assured the third party had legal authority to act on behalf of the person.

Staff were able to demonstrate they sought consent from people prior to supporting them, and involved them in decision making.