Helping Hands Kensington & Chelsea

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

The provider’s culture was generally open, responsive, positive and the management structure was clearly set out. The provider’s vision and values were easy to understand, and staff understood and followed them. They were aware of their responsibilities, and accountability. Staff were prepared to raise any concerns with the provider and take responsibility for their own conduct. The quality of the service was regularly reviewed, and any required changes made to improve the care and support people received. This was conducted in a way that best suited people. The provider had established effective professional working relationships that promoted the needs of people including those outside its remit. However, some staff did not feel the culture was fully inclusive, and empowering towards them. They didn’t always feel listened to, and said communication could be improved. This was acknowledged by the registered manager, and management team.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The management team and staff felt the service culture towards people was person-centred, the provider’s vision and values easy to understand, and staff understood and followed them. The staff and management team were aware of their responsibilities and accountability. However, some staff did not feel the culture was fully inclusive, and empowering towards them. They did not always feel listened to and felt communication could be improved. This was acknowledged by the registered manager during the inspection visit. One staff member said, “Whenever I called the [registered] manager it would go to voicemail.” Another staff member told us “I do have access to a registered manager, and they are responsive."

The quality of the service was regularly reviewed, using the processes in place. Any required changes were made to improve the care and support people received. This was conducted in a way that best suited people. The provider had established effective professional working relationships that promoted the needs of people including those outside its remit.

Staff said they had the opportunity to speak up, and had no issue with speaking up. Some staff said they were able to contribute their ideas about what the service did well, what could be improved, and had opportunities to reflect on their working practices, and professional development. The management team told us one of the cornerstones of the service vision and values was having a happy workforce, who felt listened to, supported, and valued as this in turn would be reflected in the positive care provided. However, other staff were not always confident that they were listened to, by senior management. It was dependent on who they were talking to, and communication could be improved. One staff member told us, "I am uncomfortable with an email from management advising carers on how to respond to the CQC. The email instructed us not to discuss topics like travel expenses or hours and indicated that management would brief us individually on possible questions. As someone who values honesty and integrity, this approach feels contradictory to the company’s stated values, which emphasise that helping hands respect their customers wishes and choices." The registered manager acknowledged there had been some communication issues, said they were implementing opportunities to improve this and gave examples such as introducing drop sessions with staff.

There were processes and mechanisms in place to enable staff members to speak up. They recorded staff views and were referred to for making improvements.

The work force was diverse, and this enabled people’s different cultural and religious needs to be met as well as their care, and support needs. The management team said they strove to have a workforce that felt treated equally and inclusively. Some staff felt they were treated equally, the service was inclusive, and the management team treated everyone fairly. A staff member commented, “They are one of the better care companies to work for. I've never had any issues.” However, other staff did not feel treated equally or included. One staff member said, “I asked the [registered] manager if there were any job opportunities available for the office, and she replied there was none available. Then they appointed someone.” Another staff member told us, “I have consistently received positive feedback from my clients and their guardians, which makes me question what I might be missing. Is it that Helping Hands is not receiving enough hours, or are other carers being given preference?"

There were systems for the management team to regularly review and improve the service culture regarding equality, diversity, and inclusion. This meant the provider could take action to reduce any disparities in the staff experience. The registered manager told us that some disparities regarding staff feeling included had been identified, and steps were being taken to make those staff feel more included.

The registered manager, and staff understood their roles and importance in giving people the care and support they needed. Staff told us they were frequently updated with practical information regarding how to provide good, person centred care for people, that also focused on topics such as keeping safe. They also fed back to the management team any changing needs that people had so that their care could be adjusted accordingly, and needs met appropriately.

The provider understood their responsibilities regarding duty of candour. Our records demonstrated that timely, appropriate notifications were made to the Care Quality Commission when required. The provider’s system was electronic, stored people's details, appointment schedules, and if tasks, support visits, and care plans were completed on time. Data collected was collated and used to update and improve the service provided. The provider’s quality assurance system contained key performance indicators that identified how the service was performing, any areas that required improvement and areas where the service was accomplishing or exceeding targets. Any areas needing improvement were then addressed. Monitoring and quality assurance audits took place at appropriate intervals.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.