Claydon Care Services - Main Office

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
 

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Relatives told us staff acted quickly and kept them informed: “If they found a rash or spot or breaks in skin on mum, they’d contact me.” Staff said managers reinforced learning during supervisions and shared updates through team meetings and alerts.

The provider investigated thoroughly, and updated risk assessments and care plans accordingly. Learning was shared with staff through supervision, and improvements were embedded into care planning and practice.

Families received verbal and written feedback after incidents. Feedback was also gathered through surveys to identify improvements.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Records showed coordinated planning when people returned home from hospital, including structured visit times and mobility support for one person after a fracture. The provider worked with local authorities, GPs and district nurses to arrange equipment such as hoists and profiling beds so care could continue safely at home.

Relatives told us the service was flexible and responsive: “If I want to change the care time for an appointment it’s no problem at all.” Staff described accompanying people to appointments and keeping families informed. Initial assessments involved people and their representatives, and agreed plans were added to electronic care records for easy access by the team.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives told us they felt safe, and some said they knew how to raise concerns, including contacting the regulator if needed. Staff demonstrated strong safeguarding knowledge and explained how they would escalate issues to managers, the local authority or police.

Care plans included prompts to maintain dignity and instructions for reporting concerns. Where people might lack capacity, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was applied and best-interest decisions recorded. Although no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were active, staff understood the process and how to act if needed.

Staff also considered sexual safety and trauma-informed care. They told us care plans contained the information they needed to prevent and respond to incidents.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them

Risk assessments were person-specific and reviewed regularly. They covered physical health, mobility, environment and emotional wellbeing, and included strategies agreed with the person and their family.

We saw care plans that set out clear mitigations, such as safe footwear, and guidance for using ceiling hoists with two carers. For people who were more independent, plans focused on supervision and pacing to reduce fatigue and prevent falls. Staff explained how they balanced safety with positive risk-taking, for example enabling people to continue cooking with adapted equipment.

Relatives told us carers acted quickly when needs changed, arranging equipment and adjusting routines. One relative said, “When new staff come… they shadow experienced carers so they know the routine and how to use the hoist.” Staff confirmed they monitored risks through daily notes, updated care plans promptly and informed families and the office.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Although care was delivered in people’s homes, staff carried out environmental checks during assessments and reviews to ensure safe conditions. Care plans included practical measures such as keeping floors clear, using non-slip mats and maintaining equipment like ceiling-track hoists. The provider assessed and advised people on home safety, completing appropriate domestic fire risk assessments and escalating hazards. Staff told us they checked moving and handling equipment during visits and escalated concerns promptly.

The provider worked with local authorities to arrange specialist equipment such as hoists and profiling beds. Relatives said carers helped maintain clean and safe environments where agreed.

The provider monitored environmental risks and acted quickly to reduce hazards, for example by updating risk assessments and arranging repairs.
 

The provider made sure there were enough, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing levels were stable and rotas showed strong continuity, with the same team supporting people consistently. Staff told us they felt supported and valued, and one relative commented, “Six regular [carers] over two years… amazing really.” The provider monitored staffing needs and adjusted rotas when people’s care changed, using on-call cover when needed to maintain safe staffing.

Recruitment processes were robust and ensured staff suitability. All necessary checks were completed, including verification of identity, employment history, references, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Records showed that staff were recruited safely and in line with legal requirements.

Staff received training appropriate to their roles, including mandatory subjects and specialist areas. The provider had systems in place to ensure training was kept up to date, and staff were supported through induction, supervision and ongoing development. At the time of our assessment, all care staff had completed the required mandatory training on learning disability and autism, in line with the Health and Care Act 2022.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff followed good infection prevention practice. They used hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and disposed of it safely after each visit. Staff told us, “We have everything we need, PPE, uniforms.”

Care plans included prompts for cleaning routines, safe waste disposal and hygiene steps during personal care. They also set out measures to reduce infection risks, such as skin care and safe food handling. When a person tested positive for COVID-19, the provider updated care records, checked PPE stock and reminded staff about safe practice.

The provider’s infection control policy reflected national guidance and explained staff responsibilities and outbreak procedures. Staff could describe what to do if symptoms or an outbreak occurred. Relatives told us carers managed hygiene sensitively in people’s homes.
 

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

At the time of the assessment, no one required staff to administer medicines; these were self-managed or overseen by family members. Despite this, the provider had robust arrangements to ensure safe practice if medicines support became necessary. Policies aligned with national guidance and covered ordering, storage, consent and capacity assessments.

Training records confirmed staff had completed medicines awareness and competency modules at induction and through scheduled refreshers. Staff demonstrated confidence in applying procedures if required.