Helping Hands Cramlington

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. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 service 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. New staff received support and training which helped them to show those values in their daily work with people. Staff comments when asked about working at the service included, “I just love it, working with clients”, “It is good to make a difference to people’s day”, “I love the 1 to 1 time with people, and developing good relationships.”

The service 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. Staff members’ comments included, “The managers are very supportive”, and “Managers are great.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Processes were in place for staff and people to speak up. The provider had a clear whistle blowing policy. Staff could raise concerns and the information about how to do this was available in the staff handbook. Staff meetings took place, and staff had the opportunity to share comments and give feedback. People were informed of the complaints procedure when they started to use the service.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff told us they felt valued and respected in their roles. They said they felt supported by the management, some said they were well-supported personally and professionally. A staff member told us, “I had personal concerns, and the manager was really helpful.”

The service 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 act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate. Regular audits and checks were carried out in the main areas of the service, such as around care records, health and safety, staff practice. The registered manager and the provider’s compliance department supported the management team by completing reviews of quality and safety of the service in line with regulatory requirements.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. A professional commented, “This is the only provider that has worked long-term with this client due to the person’s needs.”

The service 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 contribute to safe, effective practice and research. There was evidence of changes that had been made to the service to address checks and audits outcomes and in response to people and staff feedback. External quality assurance arrangements were in place to monitor the internal governance and identified any potential shortfalls and monitored actions to reflect and improve the service on an ongoing basis.