Helping at Home

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 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 71 (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.

We saw the management team carried out an assessment of needs with people and those important to them. We found care plans were detailed and individualised. However, we noted risk assessments were not consistently in place to guide staff on how to manage any potential risk of harm to people. This had not placed people at risk of harm as people’s care plans contained detailed information on how to mitigate any potential risk. The provider acted swiftly and put the necessary risk assessments in place.

People told us they received the care they needed to maintain their health, safety, and wellbeing.

People said they were involved in planning their care and told us care plans reflected their needs and preferences. One person said,“They came the first day and we had a discussion, and they arranged everything from then on.”Others described the care planning process as collaborative and flexible, with regular reviews and the ability to make changes as needed. This meant people were involved in their care and were able to change and update things.

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.

Where it was assessed as being required, people told us staff effectively supported them with their meals. Ensuring people are receiving enough to eat and drink ensures people’s health and wellbeing.

The provider has a clear policy for staff to support their understanding of the need to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration including signs to look out for, for example if people were dehydrated and action to take. The policy also highlighted people’s religious and/or cultural needs and preferences would be recognised in their nutrition and hydration assessment and subsequently met.

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.

There were records in place which provided other health and social care agencies with the information needed to ensure a smooth transition between services. This included information regarding capacity, medicines, and mobility.

We saw evidence of communication between the management team and external professionals and the care manager gave us examples of working with other professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people. They told us, “[Name] didn’t understand, they had a pressure area to the back of their leg, we contacted the district nurses who are now coming out. We had occupational therapy come out to assess for equipment, the chair [name] now has pressure relieving properties”.

Working collaboratively with other professionals meant people’s holistic health and wellbeing needs were being met.

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 were supported with choice and maintaining their independence. One relative told us “Yes, they [staff] do [notice]. They informed me that [relative] had pressure sores, so I was able to sort something out with their doctor”.

People’s care needs including what they could do for themselves was documented in their care plan. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to maintain their independence and offering people choice, so they were empowered. One staff member told us about a person they support who occasionally refused care, they said “I would give [them] some space and then try again. I would call the family and sometimes they could encourage [them]. Sometimes [they] would refuse to go to bed. You can’t take it personally. The person is unwell and agitated. You need to be professional and be mindful of your language and body language and remain respectful. Raise a concern and document everything.” This helped to support people to stay healthy and get the support they needed in a timely way.

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

We saw accidents and incidents were reviewed, information analysed and improvements to care made as a result. The provider had invested in an electronic system the management team used which allowed them to review and identify themes and trends in the data to improve outcomes for people. Staff directly monitored people’s welfare. A staff member said, “One of the customers had a sore on their leg, they are in hospital now, it was spotted at night, and they [manager] came out the next day and checked it, told family etc. It was dealt with well.” This meant there was good oversight of the care people received.

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

We reviewed care plans which evidenced people had consented to their care. Where people were unable to do this independently, appropriate people were involved in decision making, for example, family with legal authorisation to do this. We saw examples of where people’s capacity had been assessed and where people lacked capacity to make a specific decision, a decision was made in the person’s best interests with the support of appropriate professionals and loved ones. Staff were trained on and had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and how this impacted people’s care regarding consent and people’s rights.