Magic Helping Hands

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 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 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.

We found that people’s diverse needs were respected and fully integrated into their care planning. Care plans clearly detailed how to support each person as an individual, including comprehensive information relating to their protected characteristics and any cultural, religious, or communication needs. People told us their personal preferences were listened to and acted upon, such as being able to choose the gender of their care workers.

Most relatives expressed confidence in the office staff responsiveness. They described a team who were approachable, proactive, and quick to act. One relative told us,“If we needed extra hours from staff or help with hospital appointments the response was good.”

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. Generally, people received support from the same members of staff wherever possible, to ensure continuity of care. Some people told us they consistently had the same care staff and had built positive relationships with them. Whilst other people told us, “[name] likes to keep a routine but the carers change a lot” and “I do have all different carers.”

The registered manager worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals, including district nurses, social workers and GPs, to promote coordinated visits and ensure continuity of care that reflected people’s choices and needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were systems in place to assess communication needs and identify when information should be adapted into accessible formats. The registered manager told us they were able to produce information, if this was identified as necessary, to meet a person’s individual needs. People, their relatives and staff had access to information that was clear, accessible and stored securely. One person told us, “I have an app on my phone and they [staff] showed me how I can access my care plan on it.”

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 needs and support had changed as a result. Staff told us they listened to people and ensured they were actively involved in discussions about their care. They described supporting people to make their own decisions and respecting their preferences. One member of staff said, “I support people to make their own choices by offering clear options and respecting their decisions about their daily routines, such as what they want to eat, the activities they wish to do, or when they would like to go out.”

People told us they generally received a prompt response when requesting additional support, such as extra care hours or help with attending hospital appointments. Comments included, “If I need extra hours from staff or help with hospital appointments, the response is good,” and, “We can get hold of the office if we need to and, although we have never had to raise a concern, we would feel comfortable doing so knowing the office staff would listen and take notice.” However, some people reported that communication and follow up by office staff could be improved. They told us, “Staff will listen but don’t respond to concerns or queries and don’t give any feedback,” and “They could give a quick telephone call if they are running late.” This indicated that while the service was responsive in some areas, the consistency and timeliness of communication required strengthening.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s care and support packages were routinely monitored and reviewed to ensure they remained appropriate and reflective of their current needs. Staff maintained regular contact with the management team and worked collaboratively with other health and social care professionals to ensure any changes in people’s needs were identified and responded to promptly. Staff also supported people to access external health and social care services when required, helping to promote continuity and coordination of care.

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. The service had effective systems and processes in place to ensure people could access the support and resources they needed and were enabled to live as they chose, without discrimination. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and promoted inclusive, person-centred care. People told us they were treated fairly and supported in line with their personal needs and wishes. No one reported experiencing discrimination or unequal treatment.

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.

People’s plans for important life changes were not consistently documented. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to support people with decisions about their future, should this be required. Although care plans included a section for people to record their preferences and wishes at end of life, the plans we reviewed did not always have the information completed. We raised this with the registered manager, who told us discussions would take place with people and, where appropriate, including their relatives to gather this information if they wished to provide it. People had the opportunity to share information about their Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) status, and the service had an end-of-life policy in place to guide staff on how to support people should end of life needs arise.