Helping Hands Lutterworth

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 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.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were involved in the assessment of their needs and in developing their care plans. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s assessed needs and told us they felt there were effective processes in place to keep them updated when people’s needs changed. One staff member explained when they identified a person’s health was declining, this was reported to the office so the person’s needs could be reviewed promptly.

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.

People’s care records provided guidance on their dietary needs. People and their relatives told us they had no concerns about how staff supported them with meals. Staff said they followed the information in people’s care plans and offered choice about what people wanted to eat and drink. Care records set out people’s dietary requirements.

The provider mostly 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 told us there was effective communication with external partners involved in people’s care. This included situations where care was shared between two providers. One staff member explained, “The other agency updates me every time I go, including if the person has experienced any periods of distress.”

The registered manager told us they had positive working relationships with health and social care professionals. They said when concerns arose, these were appropriately escalated to the relevant professionals, such as the local authority or district nursing teams, to ensure people received the support they needed.

While staff told us there was good collaboration with external professionals, they felt communication and coordination within their own staff team could be improved. We have explored this further in the well‑led section.

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 staff supported them to take an active role in maintaining their health and wellbeing. This included encouraging people to make their own decisions and helping them to access healthcare when needed. One person told us staff had accompanied them to the doctor and said they would continue to support them whenever required.

Staff were able to explain how they identified changes in people’s health and the actions they took when they noticed deterioration. One staff member described looking for early signs such as changes in eating, drinking, mobility or general appearance, and said they would seek clinical advice, inform the office and update the person’s family so appropriate support could be arranged. The registered manager also explained how the service responded when people’s health needs changed. They said, “Sometimes we support [Person] to attend the GP or make referrals to the district nurses.”

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

People had monitoring charts in place where this was identified as part of their assessed needs. Staff described the steps they took when monitoring a person’s catheter to ensure this was managed safely. One staff member outlined the signs and symptoms they looked for, including changes in the colour of the urine, any evidence of leakage, and measures taken to prevent skin irritation.

The provider did not always ensure people were informed about their rights in relation to consent.

People’s capacity to make their own decisions had been considered; however, mental capacity assessments (MCAs) were not always completed where a person lacked capacity. Where records recorded people lacked capacity, some of their MCAs were not decision‑specific which rendered the assessment ineffective. There was no evidence the provider had checked whether the person could retain the relevant information long enough to make the decision or repeated the assessment where required. Best interest decisions had been completed, but these were not always carried out with involvement from the people who knew the person best.

However, people told us they were involved in making day to day decisions about their care. Staff had completed training in MCA and demonstrated a good understanding of respecting people’s wishes and decisions this included when a person lacked mental capacity. One staff member described how they supported a person to make choices in line with their capacity and communication needs. For example, when offering drinks, they used visual prompts and observed the person’s reactions to help identify their preferences.