Clarity Homecare Wolverhampton

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 46 (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 that effective systems were in place to ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always in place and did not always provide enough individual information about people. This meant people may be at risk of not receiving person centred care if temporary or new staff who did not know them well were responsible for supporting them.

Reviews of care needs were not always recorded to show how people had been involved and how their feedback had been considered. However, people and relatives felt involved with their care and staff were able to tell us about how they supported people and their individual likes, dislikes and preferences. There were some references in some care plans about what people liked, for example how they liked their hot drink making.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

As care was not always assessed and care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date or reviewed, we could not be assured people received consistent care. There was a system in place to monitor and review care however it was not always effective as it was not consistently completed.

However, the registered manager told us people were supported by a team of 3 or 4 staff to ensure they received consistent care. People and relative confirmed this to us.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives felt communication could improve and there were sometimes language barriers between themselves and the staff who supported them.

However, the provider told us information was available to people in different formats if they required this. We saw there were references to how people communicated in their care plans. Staff confirmed to us they were aware of these plans.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The registered manager told us, and we saw people had recently had the opportunity to complete questionnaires. This had been completed by the head office and there was an action plan in place that identified where improvements were needed. The actions listed in the plan had not yet been completed and the nominated individual and registered manager confirmed they had not yet taken any action listed in the action plan.

However, people told us they knew how to raise concerns. One person said, “Clarity Homecare was recommended to us, they are well known for being a good company and we have no complaints or issues”.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure. However, no complaints had been made to demonstrate this had been followed.

The provider did not always ensure people received care which met their diverse needs and preferences.

The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies if needed, but there was no evidence of this in the care people received and the records we viewed. For example, when people’s need had deteriorated, the provider had not taken any short term measures to support the people or made any referrals to relevant health professionals for support.

However, people raised no concerns with the support they received and they told us they had access to other health professionals when needed. Care records we reviewed showed families had led on this, rather than the provider. This meant people with no family support were at risk of not being able to access the services they required, when they needed to.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As people’s care was not always assessed we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences.

However, there were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care, if needed. The registered manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and where they could get support with this.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The nominated individual and registered manager told us no people were currently being supported with end-of-life care. They confirmed they did not discuss this with people and families. Care records contained no evidence of discussions around goal setting or planning for important life changes.