Helping Hands Cambridge

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. Staff and managers were committed to providing support which was tailored to meet people’s individual choices and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge of each person’s history, communication style, and support needs. This understanding enabled them to provide responsive, person‑centred care as people’s needs and preferences changed. People and their relatives confirmed that care reviews regularly took place. One relative told us, “Last month they came and went through everything. We mentioned a couple of things, and they are going to action them.”

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. People told us they were happy with the care they received and felt supported by staff who knew them well. People and their relatives told us they were usually supported by the same “core group” of staff which ensured continuity of care. Care plans contained person-specific information about what mattered to people, including their routines, preferences, and important relationships. Staff received training relevant to the needs of people they supported. Information about other agencies involved in each person’s care was documented in their records, supporting effective multi-agency working.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Staff explained options in ways people could understand, using plain language and visual aids where needed. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident action would be taken. All the people we spoke with were positive about the service provided and stated they were kept informed. One family member told us that staff were “well trained and they immediately take on board my feedback.”

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. Feedback was gained in a variety of ways including via reviews, spot checks and surveys. There was a complaints policy in place. All concerns were recorded and investigated, and any learning was shared with the staff team. People told us they felt comfortable expressing their views and that staff took their preferences seriously. Relatives described the manager as “approachable” and “responsive”, and said any issues raised were addressed promptly. This was reflected in the care records we reviewed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care delivery was flexible, with visit times adjusted to meet people’s preferences and changing needs. Staff supported people in a responsive and flexible way and attended to requests for urgent or emergency support to help ensure people’s safety and wellbeing. People and their relatives confirmed they were able to reach out to the service and contact staff when they needed additional support.

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. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The registered manager ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met. Relatives expressed confidence in the service, saying their loved ones were happy and their needs met.

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. The registered manager told us that discussions about people’s wishes and preferences in this area were included as part of care reviews, where appropriate, and involved people and their relatives. This approach ensured people were supported to make informed choices at the point where they wished to discuss future care planning. The registered manager explained that people’s wishes would be respected and documented in care plans, and appropriate support put in place to meet their needs. They demonstrated an understanding of when and how to involve other health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated and appropriate support should end‑of‑life care be required.