Helping Hands Leicester

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 68 (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.

People and their relatives told us they had access to their care plans. Some relatives could access the provider’s online system an ‘app’ which helped them to know when staff came, left and what they did.

Staff gave examples of how they delivered person‑centred care tailored to each individual’s preferences. One staff member explained they adapted their approach for each person, including offering small acts of pampering where appropriate, such as applying perfume or giving a gentle face massage. Another staff member said it was about “Making sure everything is tailored to that person so they feel safe and supported,” adding that their aim was to “make their life a little brighter.”

The registered manager also described how people were supported to take an active role in planning their own care. They told us 1 person emailed each week with their preferences, saying, “[Person] sends us their plan for the week, and we support with the appointments and activities they choose.” The registered manager said the service aimed to promote independence and choice within support plans, adding that people were treated as “The experts in their own care.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always joined up or supportive of choice and continuity.

People shared mixed experiences about continuity of care and communication around who would be visiting. Several people told us they did not receive a rota and were unsure which staff would be attending, with 1 person saying they had to “Show each carer all over again.” One relative said continuity was particularly important due to dementia but reported seeing “10–15 different carers” over a 6 month period.

Other people and relatives told us they usually received the same carers and valued the familiar routine. Staff also said they mainly supported the same people, which helped build “Rapport and trust.”

The registered manager told us they aimed to provide continuity wherever possible, explaining staff were usually allocated to the same people to support consistent care. Rotas we reviewed showed that most people received support from a largely consistent staff team.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed as part of their initial assessment, and care plans recorded how best to communicate with each person. This included details of any equipment used to support communication, such as hearing aids or glasses.

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and could provide information in alternative formats when required. The registered manager gave an example of adapting written information for 1 person and said they “Can see larger print, so we sent a large‑print version of the terms and conditions.” They added that the person also used a magnifier and continued to communicate with the service by email each week.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People shared mixed experiences about raising concerns and how effectively the service responded. People and their relatives told us they felt able to speak up and knew who to contact if they needed to raise an issue but communication could be improved.

Some people told us concerns they raised had not always been resolved. One person said they had reported issues about different staff “4–5 weeks ago” but had not seen improvement. One relative told us they had raised concerns about their family member’s medication from the point at which the care first began, and reported these concerns have remained ongoing, as the opportunity to resolve the concern at informal stage had not been taken by staff. Another relative described raising concerns about call times but initially receiving no response, explaining the service “Knew nothing about it” until they contacted the office again and provided further information. They said action was taken after this, which coincided with a care review, and call times were subsequently adjusted.

Formal complaints we reviewed had generally been managed appropriately. However, feedback from people using the service and their relatives indicated that some complaints had not always been logged. This meant the provider did not always have a complete record of concerns raised, limiting their ability to monitor themes or take learning and make improvements over time. The provider had completed a quality survey, and people and relatives reported they were satisfied with the care and support they received.

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

People with protected characteristics were actively supported to access Helping Hands Leicester. Staff took time to understand each person’s individual characteristics and needs and worked closely with them and their relatives to ensure these needs were fully considered in their care planning. This included making sure appropriate equipment and adjustments were in place so that any potential barriers to receiving care were removed.

Staff described how they made reasonable adjustments to ensure people could access their appointments and support they needed. One staff member told us they assisted a person to attend both an optician and hearing appointment during bad weather when the person had no other support available. They explained they stayed with the person throughout to ensure they felt safe and were able to get to each appointment, even though this was outside the person’s usual call time. The staff member said they informed the office afterwards and felt it was important because the person “Wouldn’t have coped on their own.”

Some staff reported experiencing difficulty contacting the out‑of‑hours service, which operated across all branches and noted delays in receiving a response. However, they confirmed that they were able to reach the out‑of‑hours duty staff member, who provided the support they required at the time.

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.

People and their relatives told us they were treated equally and fairly. This included being able to express preferences, such as whether they wished to receive care from male or female staff.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of equality and diversity. One staff member said everyone should be treated “The same, with the same respect,” adding that the Equality Act meant “Fairness for all across the board.”

The registered manager gave an example of advocating for a person when external professionals had not addressed their needs. They explained they had followed up with district nurses to resolve an issue with compression stockings after the person became distressed and their family were unable to resolve it.

Staff completed training to support their understanding of equality, diversity and inclusion.

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.

No one was receiving end‑of‑life care at the time of the inspection. Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions or a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in place. Care records clearly documented where these documents were kept in people’s homes.

The registered manager told us the service used Opening the Spiritual Gate as a guidance tool when supporting people at the end of life. They explained this helped staff understand and respect people’s spiritual and cultural wishes, including practices such as last rites or specific rituals that individuals or their families may want to observe. They said this approach ensured care remained “Compassionate, dignified and culturally sensitive.”