Clarity Homecare Wolverhampton

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 inadequate.

This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to people’s capacity and consent.

This service scored 38 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective.

The provider told us there was a process in place and people had assessments completed before they started using the service. As reported on under ‘Safe systems, pathways and transitions’, we did not see any of these assessments during our site visit as they were no longer available. This meant there was no evidence to show people’s care plans were based on their assessed needs. We therefore could not be assured these assessments were always effectively used to deliver consistent care, as some people did not always have accurate and up to date care plans in place that reflected all their needs.

However, people and relatives felt they were initially involved in the assessment when they started to use the service. One relative said, “We were both involved in the care planning. The manger came to the home, my loved 1 has a few health conditions which require monitoring, 1 requiring regular blood pressure readings which the carers are monitoring each visit. I am happy with the care plan and feel my loved 1’s needs are being met”.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

There were no systems in place to ensure care delivered was evidence based or tools were used to assess and deliver care to people. For example, when it had been identified people were at risk of falls, there was no further information in place including falls assessments. When a person had experienced a fall and been found by staff, no further care plans or risk assessments had been introduced to consider this. When people displayed periods of emotional distress, it was unclear how these incidents had been used to develop care for people as there were no care plans, risk assessments or guidance in place for staff to follow.

Staff gave us inconsistent information about how they supported people with dementia, moving and handling and during periods of emotional distress.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

There were no effective systems in place to ensure people received support from health professionals when needed. For example, it was unclear how 1 person safely transferred with them, sometimes being supported by 1 or 2 staff. There was no assessment of their needs in place.

However, staff worked well together to share information about people through daily notes. Staff confirmed they read these notes before providing care to people. People felt staff would work with other professionals to offer support if needed. One person said, “If I was unwell when the carers were here, I am confident they would let the office know or ring my daughter”.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s health needs were sometimes referenced in their care records, for example if they were diabetic. However, care plans did not always contain information about these conditions, which placed people at risk of not receiving the appropriate support they required.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always in place or reflective of people’s needs, reviewed or up to date, the systems in place to review and monitor care for people were not always effective.

The provider did not always work within the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

As there were no records to show people’s care had been assessed, there was no reference to demonstrate if people were able to consent to their care or not. There were no capacity assessments or best interest decisions in place for people. Some of the records we viewed suggested people may not always be able to consent to all aspects of their care. For example, it was documented some people had a dementia diagnosis and they did not always retain information. This meant we could not ascertain if the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were being met and people’s rights under the Act were promoted and protected.

The registered manager and the nominated individual were unable to explain they understood the requirements of the Act and during our site visit there were no records to show staff had received training in this area. However, staff were able to demonstrate the importance of gaining consent from people and confirmed they would ask people before they engaged in tasks such as personal care with them.