Helping Hands Leicester

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 changed to 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.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always have a clear shared vision or strategy. They understood the challenges and the needs of people and their communities. However, systems and processes did not always support effective oversight and risk management to ensure people always received safe care.

Some improvements were still required in shared direction and in area and regional oversight to ensure all locations were working to the same standard. Although systems were in place to support this, they were not always applied consistently across services. Clearer operational guidance was needed to promote greater alignment and ensure all services had a shared direction.

Staff described a positive and supportive culture within the service. They told us they worked well together and felt part of a cohesive team. One staff member said they had met “Wonderful staff” and felt welcomed despite not knowing many people when they first started.

Staff said they supported one another in their roles, explaining that if a task could not be completed due to time pressures, colleagues would “Help and pick it up on the next call.”

Staff described the service as a “Lovely place to work,” and said there was good teamwork and mutual support.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. However, they did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

There were gaps in leadership oversight, particularly in relation to staff working in line with Working Time Regulations. Although leaders were aware of ongoing issues around travel time, staff told us that further improvements were still required to ensure this was managed effectively and consistently.

Staff described leaders as capable, compassionate and supportive. They told us the registered manager was responsive and knowledgeable, with 1 staff member saying she was “very keen and very precise in what she does” and that they had “a lot of respect for her” because she had shown confidence in their abilities and provided opportunities for development.

Staff said leaders were approachable and maintained an open‑door culture. One staff member told us they had been supported through personal difficulties and were given time off with “no questions asked.” Staff also said the registered manager and office team regularly covered care calls when the service was short‑staffed.

The service promoted a culture where people, relatives and staff were encouraged to raise concerns; however, improvements were still needed to ensure all feedback was consistently recorded, acted upon and used to drive learning.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and shared examples of doing so. However, while staff reported feeling confident to speak up, issues relating to travel time remained unresolved, and feedback from people and relatives had not always been formally logged.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise and report concerns, including safeguarding issues. They told us they felt confident to speak up if they witnessed poor practice or anything that placed people at risk, and they knew the appropriate reporting routes. Staff said they were confident their concerns would be taken seriously.

One staff member told us, “If I saw something that wasn’t right, I would report it immediately. I would go through the proper channels and, if I didn’t feel listened to, I would report it to CQC.”

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place to support staff to raise concerns safely.

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 they were treated fairly. One member of staff said they felt “very good” about how they were treated, explaining that they had not expected to receive a reward after only working a short period of time. They described feeling proud and appreciated, and shared that being recognised so early in their employment had a positive impact on them.

Another member of staff told us they felt supported when they needed flexibility. They explained that when they requested cover for some calls so they could attend an event colleagues arranged this for them. They said this demonstrated a culture of mutual support where “It works both ways; we help each other out.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.

The registered manager had systems and audits in place; however, these were not always effective in identifying shortfalls. Several issues found during the inspection such as concerns with complaints handling, medicines management, staff logging into calls outside scheduled times, and elements of planned care not being delivered had not been highlighted through existing oversight processes. Some concerns relating to Working Time Regulations and travel time had been identified; however, these were not always recognised or addressed in a timely way. Audits of the electronic call monitoring (ECM) system were completed, but they did not consistently explore or follow up discrepancies. Variations in call times, missed log‑outs and irregular entries were not always reviewed or explained, and audit records did not consistently show who completed the checks or what actions were always taken. There were repeated examples of calls running significantly over their scheduled duration, and the registered manager had not demonstrated how this trend was monitored or whether staff required additional support or training. Staff told us they had seen improvements since the registered manager started such as clearer communication.

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.

People and their relatives told us the service worked well with health professionals to ensure people received safe care. Staff explained they made referrals to health professionals via the office team, and that advice or guidance received was shared promptly so people’s needs could be reviewed and responded to.

The provider did not always focus 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.

While some learning had been shared from sister branches and discussed in staff meetings, further work was needed to ensure this was consistently embedded in day‑to‑day practice. Although the provider reported learning was shared across branches, key issues such as the medicines concerns identified at this location had not been recognised, despite similar themes emerging at a sister branch. The registered manager had been open to feedback and had begun taking steps to address the issues identified during the inspection; however, this work was still in progress. The provider told us they remained focused on learning and driving improvements across the service, and we requested assurances regarding how wider learning was being shared. The provider subsequently outlined the actions they would take at an organisational level to ensure learning was embedded across all services in response to the issues identified at inspection.