Helping Hands Lutterworth

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 50 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

Staff described a divide between the office team and carers, which they said affected communication, consistency and team morale. One staff member described the impact on morale and said, “It feels like a tick‑box exercise, morale is on the floor.” Another staff member raised concerns about fairness and recognition and told us, “I feel my work is not appreciated there is a divide between us and the office staff.” This meant staff did not always feel part of a shared direction or positive culture.

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.

Staff told us there were inconsistencies in communication across different levels of management. Some staff said they had raised concerns but did not feel these had been acted on. While several staff described the registered manager as “lovely” and recognised management completed care calls when required, others felt the approach was not always supportive. One staff member said they did not feel listened to and said: “I wrote a message telling them how I felt and no one replied back.” Another staff member described the impact on morale and support and told us: “Support‑wise I don’t particularly feel supported; over the last year it feels like it has got worse.” The registered manager told us not all concerns had been highlighted to them and said they would review this further with staff.

Relatives told us the management team were approachable and supportive. One relative said the registered manager was “approachable,” and another told us the “Management team really try to sort things and make life easier.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff did not always have confidence action would be taken if they raised concerns. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and gave examples of doing so; however, they told us they did not feel any action had been taken when they had shared or raised concerns. One staff member said, “I have raised stuff before, but I feel like nothing is done. I don’t believe anything would change.” Staff were aware of different routes for speaking up, including reporting concerns to the office, HR, or external bodies such as the local authority or CQC but did not always feel confident speaking up internally led to change. Some staff said this affected their willingness to raise issues, particularly around communication and rota management. This meant that although staff understood how to speak up, they did not always feel their concerns were acknowledged or acted upon.

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff gave mixed feedback about whether they felt treated fairly and equally. Some staff said they did not always experience equitable treatment. One staff member told us they felt their personal circumstances were not always considered, explaining: “[Leaders] think I am available every night. I just want some nights with my family.” Another staff member said they did not feel their contribution was recognised, and said, “I work hard, but I feel the years I have worked is worthless.”

Some staff also told us their annual leave requests had been declined, which contributed to feelings of inconsistency and unfairness in how staff needs were managed.

Some staff reported positive experiences and said they felt supported with their individual needs. One staff member told us: “I do feel treated equally, they support me when I travel and always honour my festival leave.” This meant staff had differing experiences of fairness and inclusion, with some feeling well supported and others feeling their personal needs or circumstances were not consistently taken into account.

The registered manager told us staff had access to an in‑house counselling app, which had been used to support a staff member experiencing personal difficulties. They said the staff member had found this helpful at the time. The registered manager also explained that reasonable adjustments were in place for staff with additional needs, including disability. For example, staff were supported through care plans verbally, provided with visual aids, and offered reassurance to ensure they understood their responsibilities. They told us some staff used an app that could translate or transcribe notes, which helped those who found written information more difficult.

The provider did not 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’s systems and processes had failed to identify all of the concerns we found during this inspection.

Incidents and accidents, especially where a person had displayed distress, had not been reviewed effectively to identify themes and trends and prevent reoccurrence. Staff lacked effective guidance in managing the person’s behaviour. Staff had not received training in Positive Behaviour Support, and therefore, were unable to record incidents accurately and in full. Additionally, a Positive Behaviour Support plan had not been coproduced with the person and partners prior to a care package commencing.

Oversight of medicines management was not always effective, with missing or unclear information in PRN protocols, medicine patch rotations not being completed in line with best practice guidelines and some medicines not being administered as prescribed.

Where people’s assessed needs required staff monitoring and recording, these were not consistently completed and this had not been identified prior to our inspection.

Although some audits had been completed and actions identified, these were not always followed up, including those relating to Electronic Call Monitoring The poor oversight of staff deployment and review of working hours led to some staff working excessive hours; this lack of governance increases the risk to safe working practices for people and staff. The registered manager acknowledged this and said this was partly due to workload pressures and a coordinator vacancy. They told us they would be strengthening audit processes to ensure they were more robust and able to identify issues promptly, and further auditing training was planned for staff. The registered manager also told us they felt supported by the provider.

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 support safe and effective care. Staff explained they made referrals through the office team and that any advice or guidance received from health professionals was shared promptly so people’s needs could be reviewed and responded to. The registered manager told us some people and their relatives chose to access their care records online.

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. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had begun to learn from feedback and introduce changes; however, these improvements were not yet fully embedded or applied consistently across the service.

The registered manager told us learning was shared across branches through quality meetings and workshops, including topics such as ECM and MCA. They also described attending external dementia‑focused training and planned to incorporate elements of this learning into care planning, such as activities to support cognitive stimulation. These developments were still at an early stage and had not yet been fully implemented.

The service had received external recognition, including Top 20 Homecare Provider awards in 2024 and 2025, and an award of excellence from E2 Media. The branch was working closely with sister branches and senior teams to support recruitment and maintain standards.