Clarity Homecare Wolverhampton

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People and relatives felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. A relative said, “The carers are polite and compassionate, my loved 1 enjoys their company”.

Staff were aware of how to treat people with kindness and compassion and gave examples how they supported people in a dignified way. One staff member said, “I am respectful of people”. Another staff member told us, “We give people time in bathroom and go at their own pace”.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s individual needs and preferences.

People’s individual needs and risks were not always considered. Other than for the environment there were no individual risk assessments in place, despite records identifying risks to people.

However, people felt their individual needs and preferences were considered. A relative said staff, “Know what my loved 1 likes and dislikes”.

The provider did not always ensure that people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found no evidence that assessments were in place and, with the exception of 1 person, there was no evidence that regular reviews of care were being undertaken. The registered manager told us when people started using the service they would have a review after 6 to8 weeks. For 2 people they had not yet had a review and 1 person had been using the service since May 2026. As a result, we were not assured that people were regularly involved in decisions about their care and support.

However, people and relatives felt they were involved with their care and were offered choices while care was being provided. A relative said, “Carers communicate really well, they allow my loved 1 to make choices and keep the family updated”. Staff we spoke with were aware of how people made choices and told us how they encouraged people to remain independent.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

When reviews were evidenced in care records, there was evidence to show how people and those important to them were involved with this process. However, the information documented in the reviews was not always reflected in people’s care plans or the care they received. For example, 1 person had a health condition which family had described as deteriorating, there was no reference to this health condition in the person’s care file and no care plans or risk assessment about this. Another person’s mobility needs had changed, and the family had made a referral to health professionals for support, this was not considered in the persons care plans and there was no risk assessment in place for this. This meant we were not assured that people’s needs were appropriately responded to or met.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver care.

The registered manager told us about their workforce and how they considered their wellbeing. This included being available for staff and having staff meetings, however, they told us they felt these meetings could be more regular. Staff we spoke with felt supported by the management team.