Claydon Care Services - Main Office

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Before care started, assessments were completed using structured templates aligned with best practice. These captured what mattered most to people, their routines, and any risks, and translated this into clear, personalised care plans. Reviews were scheduled at set intervals and carried out promptly when needs changed. Leaders used assessment findings to match staff skills to people’s needs and arranged additional training where required. Care plans and risk assessments were routinely updated to ensure guidance remained accurate.

Records showed assessments were comprehensive and included input from people, those close to them and relevant professionals. Staff confirmed they understood the process and felt assessments provided the right level of detail to guide care. People and relatives told inspectors they were involved in assessments and reviews and felt their views were listened to. Care plans reflected current needs and preferences, including communication requirements, such as visual aids and social stories where appropriate.
 

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans reflected recognised best practice, including safe water temperature checks, positioning to reduce falls, pressure area care and hydration prompts to minimise infection risk. Staff adapted care as needs changed and escalated concerns promptly to health professionals. Records showed timely updates to care plans following changes in people’s conditions.

Training records confirmed staff had completed core and specialist training, such as dementia care, end-of-life care, moving and handling, infection control and first aid. Staff described how they applied this knowledge in practice, including referring a person with a potential choking risk to their GP for assessment.

Care plans showed clear links between assessed needs and evidence-based interventions, and included practical guidance for staff, current risks and preferences.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Records showed effective liaison with GPs, district nurses and local authorities to coordinate care, including clear expectations for reporting changes and timely referrals for skin integrity concerns. Families were actively involved in daily routines, and carers supported people to attend health appointments when needed.

Staff described strong internal communication, supported by out-of-hours availability and proactive spot checks. Relatives confirmed that care was well coordinated, including when carers needed to hand over to maintain plans during travel disruptions. Care records showed evidence of information sharing and updates following professional input.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care plans included strategies to maintain hydration and nutrition, such as prompts, monitoring and offering small portions or supplements based on individual preferences. Mobility goals focused on safe pacing, energy conservation and the use of aids to help people remain as independent as possible. Records showed staff arranged equipment, promoted daily living activities and facilitated access to healthcare appointments.

Relatives told us that carers enabled meaningful activities and outings, including visits to gardens, art galleries, musicals and the zoo. Staff confirmed they supported people to maintain independence and adapt care as needs changed. We reviewed care plans and saw clear links between assessed needs, mobility goals and practical strategies to promote wellbeing.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans set out clear goals, such as maintaining comfort, independence, fall prevention and skin health. Staff monitored progress through daily notes, spot checks and regular reviews, making timely adjustments such as introducing mobility equipment and escalating concerns to health professionals when needed. The provider used an electronic system to flag issues like missed tasks or late visits and carried out audits to identify trends. Improvements were made when issues arose, for example resolving connectivity problems with handheld devices by introducing syncing guidance and staff training.

Relatives confirmed that care was adapted as needs changed and praised the provider’s responsiveness. Care plans and audit records showed evidence of updates following reviews and actions taken to address identified risks.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person‑centred care and support. Staff sought consent in ways people could understand and took all practicable steps to help people make their own decisions.

Pre‑assessment discussions recorded what mattered to people, their preferences and cultural considerations, and checked any legal powers such as Lasting Power of Attorney. Where people had fluctuating or impaired capacity, decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), supported by decision‑specific assessments and best‑interest records. Care plans clearly documented how consent was given, including verbal, written or alternative communication methods. Digital systems prompted reviews of consent documentation and flagged when updates were required.

Relatives confirmed they were involved in decisions and that staff explained options and respected choices, including when people declined aspects of care. Staff interviews and training records showed up‑to‑date learning on consent and MCA, and supervision reinforced decision‑making principles. We reviewed care records and saw evidence of timely capacity reviews, best‑interest meetings and care plans updated to reflect people’s wishes.