Helping Hands Aylesbury

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service and how records were managed.
 

This service scored 61 (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.

The provider ensured staff were made aware of the values and mission statement. Staff confirmed this was discussed with them and they were able to clearly identify the culture of the organisation.

One member of staff told us “Helping Hands Aylesbury is very well organised and well-managed. I know when to contact the manager and when to contact my coordinator, I am quite aware of their roles within the company and approach them accordingly with my problems.” Another said, “I think Helping Hands Aylesbury mission is to enable people to live in their own homes and in their communities, to provide person centred care tailored to every individual's needs and to better their quality of life”.
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. However, not all leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively. Leaders demonstrated integrity, openness and honesty. However, they were not always able to identify areas of improvement required.

We found the provider and registered manager had not routinely identified the issues we found. Information held by the senior office-based staff was not always recorded or shared with the wider staff team to ensure collective action was taken to improve the service. The provider had not identified areas of support and oversight needed to establish embedded roles and responsibilities.

However, the registered manager was highly respected by staff and demonstrated a willingness to work with us throughout the assessment.

The provider has systems in place to support staff thought formal and informal processes. This enabled staff and leaders to develop their skills.

Staff told us, “My manager and even my area manager never failed to come and help me, or sort out things, after I raised concerns” and “They [senior managers] lead us by being seen and being very practical with their support”.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
Staff were aware of the term ‘freedom to speak up’ and told us the service encouraged them to do this if they had any concerns.

Staff told us, “I understand what ‘freedom to speak up’ means, if I have concerns, I know that I can raise them safely and I will be supported for speaking up”, “It allows me to speak up knowing my concerns will be heard and acted upon. This also will improve the service given” and “Freedom to speak up enables staff to raise any concerns regarding the individual’s safety, staff well-being or any wrong doing without fear of detriment or reprisal”.

Another staff told us, “It did happen that I had to speak up about a client I was supporting and my manager started a very serious conversation with my client, supporting all parties and trying to find solutions. And that whole thing ended very beneficially to all parties involved due to the manager's support”.

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.

The provider has systems and processes in place to ensure staff were treated with respect and dignity. Staff told us they felt supported by the service and registered manager, comments included, “I have no concerns about the way the service treats me, or other staff. I think they [registered manager] treat us all fairly and equitably”, “They [registered manager] treat me with respect” and “They [registered manager] will go out of their way to provide support to all carers”.

Another staff member told us “I think it’s well run now and you feel well supported and valued. [With regard to] “the support that I get from this office, I have never stood there and thought I am on my own”.

The service had a process in place for people and staff to nominate another staff as employee of the month for which recognition was shared in monthly newsletters. Weekly emails to the staff team routinely included a thank you from the registered manager.

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

The providers auditing systems, did not highlight the concerns we found, audits carried out on care plans, and recruitment records did not always identify improvements required. A medicine audit carried out in December 2025, failed to identify concerns about a person’s medicine. It was not clear if the GP had authorised the medicine to cease.

Daily records written for people who had 24-hour live in staff, were not always written in a timely manner. We found one entry was made for a 24-hour period. This meant the daily note was not available for the registered manager or office staff to see until fully completed.We have provided feedback to the provider to ensure delays in records being written is minimised.

We found records were not always accurate and complete. We found incident forms had been completed, but no reference was made to the same event in the person’s daily notes.

We found medicine administration records (MAR), did not routinely follow best practice guidance from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

We found risk assessment had not been written for all potential hazards posed to people. Where risk assessment had been written they did not always contain enough information to provide clear guidance for staff on how to keep people safe.

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 told us “Over the past year, we have strengthened our focus on inclusion by collaborating with charities such as Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the British Heart Foundation, supporting awareness events and fundraising activities. We also encourage staff to celebrate diversity through community engagement, cultural awareness, and recognition of special events. We are proud of the ways we support people to access their communities regardless of background or ability. For example, carers have helped customers attend appointments, go shopping, or simply enjoy a coffee, ensuring that care needs do not become a barrier to inclusion”

The service organised a Christmas lunch and invited members of the wider community who were not currently involved within the service.

The service had processes in place to signpost people who use the services to helpful sources of support, for example local mental health support services and trading standards in relation to doorstep cold calling.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and learn from events; however, they had not routinely picked up on the issues identified by us. We found records of staff observations had not routinely been transferred to people’s records to ensure a clear audit trail of actions completed.

A staff survey indicated staff wanted more opportunities to share feedback and ideas, therefore the systems for team meetings were revised to enable greater participation and incorporated greater discussion to discuss challenges, share updates and celebrate success.

The registered manager kept up to date with local and national initiatives affecting home care agencies through regional provider meetings.