Helping Hands Aylesbury

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Continuity of care was generally good, with people having regular carers. People and their relatives told us, “They have a fairly close team. If new carers are introduced, they have a shadow visit”, “[staff] knows [person] very well” and “The training/ induction of new carers seems to be effective in creating a body of carers who are confident and skilled.”

People said they had built positive relationships with staff. Comments included, “There are a few we know very well", “They are kind and nice and chatty” and “They do shadow visits”, this enabled staff to get to know people.

Staff told us they had information available to enable them to support people. One member of staff told us, “Care plans provide access to clients’ personal histories, preferences, and goals, which helps me provide respectful and compassionate support.”

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.

The provider and registered manager used a computerised rostering system which allowed staff to be allocated to people for each call. We found the rostering was well managed. The registered manager told us when people requested live in care staff, every effort was made to match the care staff to the person. They shared with us plans to further enhance this by creating a care staff profile for people to read.

Staff told us they have good continuity within their care visits and how this helps both people and staff. In addition, the registered manager told us, “We carry out weekly [rota] monitoring, allowing us to promptly identify and review any irregularities in logins or documentation patterns.”

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

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. We found the service had assessed people’s communication needs.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s communication needs were assessed and met. The service was able to offer information to people in a different format if needed. The registered manager told us “Our marketing team supports this by producing materials on request, ensuring information is clear and person-centred. For example, we use easy read for people with learning disabilities and large print for those with visual impairments”. The service had produced a selection of information leaflets on different conditions, for instance, heart care, stroke, risk of fall, which were taken out on initial assessment to people wishing to access the service.

The service produced a monthly newsletter which was accessible for all who use the service and presented information in a variety of methods. This resource provided useful information about local events, sources of help, guidance to help people keep safe, in addition to the latest news about the service.

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 service had processes in place to respond to people’s feedback received during a survey in August 2025. An area identified was a lack of awareness of the complaint’s procedure, as a result all people receiving support from the service were supplied with an accessible version of the complaints procedure and the documents was promoted during every face to face interaction with people.

In addition, to feedback received a same day notification process was established in order people could be informed of any changes or delays to their expected visits, in a timely manner.

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

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

In response to an anticipated increase in live in care respite care requests placements over the Christmas and New Year period, the service put in place processes to engage visiting staff to enable these packages of care to be started quickly.

Care plans incorporated people’s expressed wishes and enabled hobbies and interests to be maintained. This included incorporating daily walks and enjoyment of a person’s garden.

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

The provider carried out face to face reviews of people’s care and sent questionnaires to people to receive feedback. People told us, "I look forward to their visit each morning when they always ask how I was feeling, how I had slept and were happy to have a conversation, they were interested in my plans for the day and news about my family".

Systems were in place to receive feedback and act on it. We found complaints had been received and responded to. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and had received information about the process. One person who had not made a complaint but did communicate concerns told us, “Not a complaint, very minor things and then the office sorts it out.”

Staff told us “I know that it is my duty to help my clients and their relatives and inform them about the ways they [people] can raise concerns or even complain if they are not happy about something. I would encourage and help them [people] to send the complaint to the office, and I would notify them about the procedure and the waiting time”.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure people had the opportunity to discuss end of life wishes if they wanted to. Where people had made an advance decision about resuscitation this was noted and understood. One person told us, “They [Staff] all know there's a DNR. It's in the pink folder and there's one in the kitchen itself. The ambulance crew can see it.”