Helping Hands Stourbridge

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 64 (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 promoted a shared culture which was based on engagement with people and relatives in order to meet the needs of people.

Leaders worked closely with relatives and staff to create an inclusive culture. There was a complaints and equality and diversity policy in place, staff received training in both these areas and told us they were able to speak to leaders should they have concerns.

Staff meetings were completed by the registered manager on a regular basis which reinforced the values and expectations of the service. Leaders also used satisfaction surveys to obtain the views of staff.

Relatives told us staff regularly consulted with them about the care their relatives received; their views were obtained via their relative’s care plan reviews and satisfaction surveys, and they felt able to raise concerns and were confident leaders would take appropriate action.

Leaders did not always demonstrate the skills and knowledge to lead some aspects of the service effectively.

The provider failed to identify and address concerns outlined in this report, including issues with incident management and care records that did not consistently reflect or mitigate risks. This meant the service was not always effectively managed, resulting in an increased risk to people using the service.

However, there were areas leaders demonstrated effective leadership. For example, people, relatives and staff were confident the provider would effectively deal with concerns, staff felt well-supported and there were some examples of care plans and risk assessments providing good information.
 

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

Leaders actively sought feedback from people, relatives and staff, and acted on it. The provider promoted an open culture where concerns were raised confidently and addressed promptly.

Staff had clear routes to raise issues, including supervisions, meetings, surveys and day-to-day communication. Leaders told us staff were aware of the importance of and process for raising concerns, and this was discussed with them within their supervisions. Staff we spoke with did not tell us they had any issues in raising concerns and were confident should they need to do so, they would be dealt with.

People were provided with regular opportunities where they could raise concerns should they wish to, and when we spoke with people they told us they were happy with their care and they knew who to speak to should they ever have 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.

Leaders informed us they valued a diverse workforce which they treated fairly. Staff supported this by telling us they were happy working with the provider and felt they were treated fairly.

There were processes in place to consider staff member’s individual needs, such as supervisions and team meetings.

The provider did not always have clear systems of good governance.

Effective systems and processes were not always in place to ensure safety events were always analysed and acted upon for understanding, learning and mitigation. Systems failed to highlight the concerns we found relating to some care plans and risk assessments not containing required information about people’s needs and risks. This meant governance systems were not always effective and exposed people to the risk of receiving poor care.

However, there were areas where effective systems were in place. For example, systems to ensure people transitioned safely into the service, mental capacity assessments, staff training and obtaining the views and feedback of others.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of their role and responsibility in ensuring they maintained appropriate communication with external partners. Safety events were reported to external partners, such as CQC and the local authority, where the provider was required to do so.

Staff supported people to integrate within their local communities and the provider communicated with people’s relevant professionals.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning and improvement across the service.

The provider had not always identified and effectively acted in areas of the service which required improvement. For example, the concerns we have identified during our inspection and detailed throughout this report., The provider did not always have a good awareness and understanding of audit processes and how these can be used to effectively identify concerns and mitigate risks to achieve continuous learning and improvement. This meant there were missed opportunities to learn and make improvements to the overall quality and safety of the service.

However, as detailed within other areas of this report, there were examples in which the provider used audit processes in other areas effectively to mitigate risks and achieve improvements.