Helping Hands Stourbridge

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 64 (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 were effectively at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Information within people’s care records was not always person-centred. For example, where people required support to manage identified needs, their care plans and risk assessments did not always include information about those needs. While care records were reviewed with people and relatives, care plans and risk assessments were not effectively reviewed to ensure they always accurately detailed people needs.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s individual needs, which was supported by relative feedback; and leaders sought the views of people and relatives regarding the care people received via satisfaction surveys, which were used to shape how people were supported.

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

Although leaders advised there were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed, these processes were not always effective in ensuring people’s care records were detailed. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

Safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm had not always been adequately analysed by leaders to support understanding and learning. This meant there was a risk staff were not always aware of known issues.

Safety events were appropriately reported to CQC and the local authority, which promoted joined-up working.

Staff told us they were aware of people’s health needs and how they supported people to meet these needs in consultation with external healthcare professionals. People and their relatives told us staff worked closely with families and external health professionals when this was required.

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

Communication care plans and risk assessments detailed how people chose to communicate. Where people had communication needs, staff used a range of communication methods to aid people’s understanding, such as picture boards and gestures.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s communication needs, and relatives told us how staff adapted their communication approach depending on the needs of people they supported.

The service user guide, which is a key source of information for people who use the service, provided up-to-date and detailed information.

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 told us they were involved in their care planning processes, and people were provided with regular opportunities in which they could raise matters with leaders, such as via people satisfaction surveys.

People and relatives told us staff and leaders keep them informed about changes, with 1 relative saying, “They’re always letting me know about things to keep me up-to-date.”

People, relatives and staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident any issues raised would be dealt with. One relative said, “I’d have no hesitation raising anything with the manager. I have their number and I speak to them whenever I need to.”

A complaints policy was in place, and we observed how leaders responded to complaints promptly.

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

While people’s care records did not always provide adequate information, the continuity of care people received in addition to staff possessing a clear awareness of people’s needs meant people could access the care they required when they needed it.

Staff worked flexibly around people’s and relative’s routines and needs to ensure people received care at times that suited them.

People and relatives told us the service was accessible and responsive. One person told us, “Not only do I get the support I needed, but if I ever need additional support, I just contact the office and they sorted this out for me.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

An equality and diversity policy was in place and staff had received equality and diversity training, which supported the service’s awareness of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people, so they had comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health condition, communication needs, or background. For example, staff provided additional mobility support so people could access the wider community, while others received adapted communication support to fully participate in care planning and daily decisions.

Staff worked with external health professionals to promptly address health needs, helping reduce avoidable deterioration.

People were supported to achieve positive outcomes, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told us staff treated people fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.

People were not always 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.

While people were not in receipt of end-of-life care at the time of the assessment, people’s care plans mostly did not include information on the longer-term wishes and preferences which could be important to them. However, some care plans did include relevant and person-centred information, which included future preferences.

Leaders acknowledged this information had not been captured and stated their intention to address the situation by reviewing people’s care plans with them and / or their relatives.