Helping Hands Stourbridge

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.

This service scored 63 (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 did not always make sure people’s assessed needs were effectively reviewed.

Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain relevant information about people’s health and safety needs to enable them to receive care or treatment which provided good outcomes. For example, where records identified people had physical health and safety needs, they did not always have a care plan or assessment which adequately provided guidance to staff on how these needs should be met. This meant people were at risk of their needs not being clearly known and delivered by staff.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed and updated following safety events where people sustained harm.

However, people and relatives were involved in the care planning process of people receiving support from the service. People and relatives told us their care was reviewed with them, and staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s needs and how these should be met.

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.

Leaders were aware of the ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance. People’s care plans and risk assessments made reference to these principles, such as supporting people to exercise real choice, control and independence in their lives.

Evidence-based assessment tools were in place to identify risks to people’s health needs. For example, best practice assessment tools were used for people with skin integrity needs.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how assessment tools were used to manage risks to people’s health and safety, such as those with nutritional needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Leaders and staff worked collaboratively together and with external professionals, including health and social care teams, to meet people’s needs. This helped ensure people received the right support at the right time.

People and relatives told us staff worked well together and with other services, which helped positive outcomes. One relative told us, “I couldn’t ask for more from the staff; they communicate with me and my relative brilliantly. They have advised and signposted me to healthcare support that might benefit my relative.”

While staff meetings did not always review safety events for learning, they took place on a regular basis and provided opportunities for staff and leaders to communicate.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to enable them to live healthier lives.

As detailed elsewhere within our report, people’s care records did not always contain relevant information to ensure people could be clearly and consistently supported to positively manage their healthand wellbeing. We found relevant guidance relating to people’s health conditions and safety needs was sometimes not in place so staff could support people to live healthy lives. This meant there was a risk people may not always be supported to manage their health and wellbeing.

However, we saw examples of care plans and risk assessments containing clear, detailed and person-centred information about people’s health needs. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s health needs.

The provider did not always effectively routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed by staff. However, this monitoring was not always effective as reviews and audits failed to identify the concerns we found regarding the lack of relevant information in people’s care records, and so was not always able to ensure people’s outcomes were positive and consistent. This meant there was a risk the care and treatment people received from staff may not always meet their needs.

People’s care was monitored by senior staff undertaking regular visits of people’s homes to assess staff practice, equipment and to seek relative feedback. Leaders also sought the views of relatives about their relatives care via satisfaction surveys.

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

The service considered the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when supporting people. Decision-specific mental capacity assessments were carried out for people in all areas of their care, and these were reviewed on a regular basis. People told us staff respected their wishes regarding how their care was provided, and relatives told us staff provided care based on people’s consent.

Staff training records showed staff received MCA training. Staff displayed a good awareness of the MCA and how they applied this to people they supported, with staff telling us, “We do whatever people want us to do.”

Relatives also told us people’s consent was sought and respected when they were provided care, with 1 relative saying, “They always ask [my relative] before they do anything.”