Helping Hands Ferndown

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 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 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 had a set of values and standards they expected from staff delivering care. These were shared with staff during induction, and they also formed part of ongoing discussions during meetings and supervisions.

Staff we spoke with enjoyed their work. Comments from staff included, “The company's policy is person centred and as far as I can say the service is efficient and providescarers with good support,” and “I do feel proud of working for Helping Hands Ferndown, I think we give an excellent service.”

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.

The service was managed by a branch manager who had not been in post long and was going through the CQC registration process. They had support from other registered managers and head office. People and relatives knew who the manager was. Staff told us they felt the manager was approachable and supportive. However, some staff said that they were often contacted outside of work hours. A staff member said, “[The management] is supportive and approachable. It is obvious they are busy howeverthe door is always open.” And another comment from a different staff member was, “The management are very approachable however they do contact you out of working hours quite regularly when not urgent.”

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

Staff told us they were clear about their responsibility to report poor practices and ensure people in their care were treated respectfully and safely.

The provider had processes to support staff to speak up. This included supervision meetings, handovers, staff meetings and a whistleblowing policy and process. Information about sharing concerns was available on posters in the office. The provider told us they were an open and transparent service and encouraged staff to speak up or share any concerns.

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 ensured staff completed training on equality and diversity when they started work. There were policies and procedures to make sure staff had an inclusive environment at work.

Some members of the office team had originally started as carers and were supported to develop their skills through training and ongoing support to move into more senior roles. This demonstrated a commitment to staff development and leadership growth within the service, contributing to a well-led and sustainable team structure.

People consistently described staff as professional, kind and respectful, reflecting a culture where equality and inclusion were embedded in everyday practice.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Various audit processes and governance systems were in place. These included audits undertaken at service level and those carried out by the provider’s quality team. Audits were effective and covered all aspects of the service to include people’s care plans, accidents and incidents, safeguarding concerns and surveys.

Regular competency checks were carried out on staff to help ensure they met the expectations of the service and people were contacted or visited to give their feedback on the care they received.

Services we regulate have a statutory responsibility to notify CQC about certain events that occur in a service. Notifications were submitted, as required.

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 service worked with people’s GPs, the district nursing team and local authority to help support people’s care.

Audit satisfaction surveys were completed to gather feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of care provided. The most recent results we viewed showed feedback was mainly positive. Where areas for improvement were identified, such as enhancing communication, the service took appropriate action to address these.

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.

The provider demonstrated effective systems for driving improvement. They analysed information from accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding alerts to identify patterns, and used these findings, together with stakeholder feedback, to inform and update the service improvement plan.

Staff training records were routinely monitored to ensure staff remained competent and knowledgeable. There was a clear organisational focus on continuous improvement and innovation, with person centred practice evident throughout the service. Staff were supported through regular training, supervision and the use of electronic systems to monitor performance and professional development. Lessons learned were shared with staff and used to enhance care quality and outcomes for people.