Humble Hands Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. The key question has not been fully assessed to give a rating.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance and accurate record keeping.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leadership oversight was affected by the way the agency operated. Both directors, one of whom one was also the registered manager and nominated individual, were employed in other jobs. The registered manager had previous experience within adult social care and had completed the agency training programme. The second director acknowledged they had no previous experience and did not involve themselves in areas relating to the care and support of people. Therefore, it was unclear how managers could effectively support and develop the team.

People felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The agency had a whistle blowing procedure, which was accessible to staff in the handbook. Information detailed how staff can raise any issues or concerns in confidence. Staff said there was good communication within the team and felt supported.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The agency did not have a physical office, with both directors living some distance from staff and the person receiving support. This meant that day-to-day operations, staff supervision, and care coordination were mainly managed remotely with contact through telephone, email, and social media Apps.

Effective governance systems were not in place to demonstrate the provider had clear management and oversight of the service. Audits and checks had yet to be embedded helping to identify areas for further improvement and learning.

A range of policies were available, some which had not been reviewed and updated. Not all reflected accurate information, such as current legislation and there was little evidence of these being put into practice. We found records in relation people using the service and staff were not always fully complete and accurately maintained.

Detailed quality assurance policies and procedures were in place showing a range of checks to be completed. However, we saw no evidence these had been effectively implemented, helping to identify issues found during this assessment. The service required more time to demonstrate systems had been embedded, were consistently completed and provided evidence of sustained and ongoing improvement so people received safe and effective care.

Due to size of the agency and limited support provided several quality statements could not be assessed.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Well-led key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.