Helping Hands Liverpool

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 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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed thoroughly and regularly reviewed. Support plans reflected individual preferences and health conditions they needed support with on a day to day basis, including stroke recovery, diabetes management, and having limited mobility. One person’s care plan included goals to regain independence and resume hobbies, with tailored support to encourage social interaction.

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. Care was delivered in line with best practice guidance. Staff followed clear protocols for catheter care and topical medication application, reducing risks such as infection, skin breakdown, and missed applications. Risk assessments were detailed and regularly updated, with clear instructions for carers

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff collaborated effectively with families, GPs, and pharmacies. Communication was proactive, and feedback from relatives highlighted strong teamwork. One relative described the service as responsive and supportive, with regular contact from the office to discuss changing needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were supported to maintain their health and independence. Staff encouraged fluid intake, exercise, and engagement in hobbies. One person attended cultural events and craft classes, which were supported by their care schedule.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Outcomes were monitored through audits and governance reviews. Monthly governance checks had improved since the last inspection, and now identified areas for improvement, such as documentation and visit protocols. Actions were tracked, and staff were held accountable for follow-ups. Improvements were made to medication documentation and fall prevention strategies.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Consent was consistently sought and documented. People were asked about their preferences during each visit, such as whether they wanted creams applied, which were prescribed for as and when needed usage. Staff respected people’s choices and involved them in decisions about their care. No concerns were identified regarding mental capacity or legal safeguards.