Able Hands Healthcare 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff were supported to understand the provider's values, expectations and standards through regular team meetings, policies and procedures, training and ongoing communication. Records showed staff were expected to read key policies and procedures and confirm they had understood them, helping to ensure care was delivered consistently and in line with best practice.

Staff told us the registered manager regularly met with them to discuss the standards expected and to reinforce the importance of delivering safe, compassionate and person-centred care.

Meeting records demonstrated a positive and open culture where staff were encouraged to share feedback and contribute ideas for improvement. Topics discussed included communication, staffing, lessons learned from incidents, feedback from people using the service and expectations regarding safeguarding and professional conduct. Staff reported feeling supported, listened to and able to approach management with concerns or suggestions.

People and relatives spoke positively about the quality of care and the culture within the service. One person told us, “I'm very pleased with the care provided.”

The provider valued feedback from people, relatives and staff and used this information to drive improvement.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff, people and relatives spoke positively about the leadership of the service and described the registered manager as approachable, responsive and committed to delivering good quality care. The registered manager, who is also the director, is a qualified nurse.

They understood their responsibilities and supported staff to provide safe, compassionate and person-centred care.

Staff consistently told us the registered manager was supportive, understanding and easy to approach. They said they felt comfortable discussing both work-related and personal matters and were confident their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. One staff member told us, “The registered manager is easy to talk to. They are very supportive.” Staff also described a positive culture where they felt valued and respected.

People and relatives had confidence in the leadership of the service. One person told us, “The registered manager is experienced. He is good and listens.” A relative said, “The registered manager is running the company well and I pray they continue to provide good and compassionate care to people.” These comments demonstrated that leaders were visible, trusted and responsive to feedback.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a ‘Whistleblowing’ and ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ policy which gave staff clear guidance on how to raise concerns about poor practice, safety or conduct.

Staff told us they felt confident to challenge poor practice and raise concerns without fear of negative consequences. They said the registered manager was approachable and responsive and would listen to and act upon any issues raised. Staff described a culture of openness where they were encouraged to share their views and contribute to service improvements.

Regular team meetings provided opportunities for staff to discuss concerns, share learning and contribute feedback. Meeting records demonstrated that staff views were sought and discussed, including communication, staffing arrangements, lessons learned from incidents and ways to improve the service. This helped create an environment where staff felt heard, supported and empowered to raise concerns in the interests of people receiving care.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they felt respected, valued and supported in their roles. The provider recognised individual circumstances and offered flexible working arrangements where possible to support staff with family commitments and personal wellbeing. Staff described an open culture where they felt able to share their views and raise concerns without fear of discrimination or unfair treatment. Staff were expected to treat one another with dignity and respect, and team meetings reinforced expectations around professional boundaries, appropriate use of social media and respectful communication.

The provider promoted staff rights through policies, training and regular engagement with the workforce.

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 provider had governance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. A range of audits were completed, including medicines audits, training and supervision audits, and care records audits. Audit findings were used to identify areas for improvement and monitor progress. However, these were not always effective in identifying shortfalls.

Governance systems were not always operating correctly to ensure care records were accurate, complete and reflective of people's current needs. During our review of care plans, we identified inconsistencies and gaps in information.

We also found inconsistencies within medicines records, where assessments described people as independent with their medicines while other sections of the care plan instructed staff to supervise, prompt or support medicines administration. Feedback from people, relatives, and staff indicated that these recording gaps had not yet affected people's care, as staff understood their needs and provided appropriate support. We discussed these issues with the provider during the assessment. The provider reviewed and updated the records immediately and provided assurance that additional auditing measures would be introduced to strengthen oversight and help identify and address any gaps or inconsistencies in care records at an earlier stage.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager and staff worked closely with people, relatives and healthcare professionals to share information, respond to changing needs and achieve positive outcomes.

People and relatives described effective communication between the service and other professionals involved in their care. One relative told us staff “work together” and provided regular updates, contacting them promptly if there were any concerns. Staff also gave examples of working with ambulance services, district nurses, GPs and physiotherapists to ensure relevant information was shared and people received appropriate support.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

They used information from incidents, audits and feedback to identify opportunities to strengthen systems and improve outcomes for people. For example, following a missed visit, the provider completed a review and identified that poor communication and limitations of the paper-based visit tracking system had contributed to the incident. Rather than focusing solely on the individual event, the provider undertook a broader review of processes and invested in an electronic management system to improve oversight of scheduled visits, communication and accountability. This reduced the risk of similar incidents occurring and strengthened monitoring arrangements across the service.

The provider's audits also identified that paper-based records created delays in documentation, gaps in recording outcomes and limited real-time oversight of care delivery. In response, staff received training on the new electronic system and management monitored its implementation. Records demonstrated improvements in the timeliness of care documentation, the quality of information recorded and management oversight following the move to electronic records.

The provider promoted a learning culture where incidents, concerns and audit findings were used to improve practice. Lessons learned were shared with staff through meetings, supervision and training to help embed improvements and maintain safe, effective care. This demonstrated a proactive approach to continuous improvement and a willingness to invest in systems that enhanced the quality and safety of care people received.