Helping Hands Lutterworth

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.

Relatives told us staff paid attention to the small details which mattered to people and helped them feel valued. One relative said staff would apply aftershave so their family member “smells nice.” Another told us staff went out of their way to offer personalised touches and told us, “They had brought flowers for them and got them some fish and chips when they fancied them.”

Staff understood the importance of delivering person‑centred care and supporting people’s individual needs. One staff member told us they promoted people’s comfort and protected characteristics by talking with them about what mattered to them and ensuring they were not treated differently or unfairly. Another staff member told us care was tailored to each person, saying it was “about doing things the right way for that individual” and recognising that “what works for one person doesn’t work for another.”

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 worked hard to provide continuity of care. People told us they generally received support from the same staff during the week, which helped them feel comfortable and reassured. One relative said they “Receive the same carer at the same time” and valued this consistency. People and relatives gave mixed feedback about continuity of care on the weekends. One person said they managed well Monday to Friday but “Really can’t cope with unknown carers coming on a weekend.” One relative told us, they sometimes had “a lot of different carers in a week,” although they recognised the staff and felt reassured by this.

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. They also said the service shared additional information with people during assessment, including guidance on benefits they may be entitled to, to help them access wider support.

Rotas we reviewed confirmed that people received support from a mostly consistent staff team.

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

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to adapt communication to meet people’s individual needs. One staff member told us they supported a person who had experienced a stroke by using simple, short sentences to help them understand and engage in conversation. Another staff member explained they used non‑verbal and visual choices for people who used limited words or were living with dementia, adding they always ensured the person was still making their own choices through facial expressions or by offering visual options.

The registered manager showed us examples of how the service provided information in accessible formats. This included producing large‑print documents for people with visual impairments. They told us the service was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and could provide information in alternative formats, such as braille or different languages, to ensure people received information in a way that met their communication needs.

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.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and knew how to contact the office. They said they knew who the manager was and felt comfortable approaching them, with one relative describing the registered manager as “very approachable.”

The provider had a complaints process in place and complaints had been managed; however, some opportunities for learning were missed, such as updating care plans to reduce the risk of similar issues happening again. The registered manager assured us care records would be updated following our feedback.

The provider had completed a quality survey, and people and relatives reported they were satisfied with the care and support they received. Feedback highlighted the need for further staff training which the provider had added to their action plan.

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

People’s protected characteristics, as outlined in the Equality Act 2010, were considered during assessment and when planning care. Relatives told us the service was flexible and responsive when changes were needed. One relative said they had requested additional support over a bank holiday and “There were no problems.” Another relative told us the provider had been accommodating when they needed to adjust call times due to personal commitments, including attending a medical appointment with their family member.

Most relatives said they were able to contact the service out of hours when needed.

Staff also described how they adapted support when people’s needs changed. One staff member told us they had recently supported a person whose health had declined rapidly, explaining how they arranged equipment, reorganised the environment and worked with the family to ensure the person remained comfortable.

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 relatives told us they were treated fairly and that their preferences, such as the gender of staff providing personal care, were respected. Staff were able to describe situations where people might experience discrimination or inequality and how they worked to prevent this.

The registered manager also shared an example where they had advocated for a person who experienced undignified treatment from external healthcare staff. They intervened at the time and supported the person to make a complaint.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity to support their understanding of how to promote fair and inclusive care.

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.

People’s care records included information about their future wishes, including plans relating to end‑of‑life care. At the time of the inspection, no one was receiving end‑of‑life support.

Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) or ReSPECT documentation in place. Care records clearly noted where these documents were kept in people’s homes. The provider had considered people’s preferences about sharing this information and recorded their decisions appropriately.