Clarity Homecare Wolverhampton

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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 leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The culture of the service was poor. The lack of oversight had resulted in people receiving poor standards of care by staff who were not adequately trained or competent. Staff were not able to show they were aware of the values of the organisation as these had not been discussed or shared with them. The nominated individual said this was something they were looking at implementing, however during the inspection it was evident there were no agreed organisational values in place.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The lack of systems and oversight of the care people received demonstrated a lack of capability from the registered manager and nominated individual. There was a failure by all leaders to have adequate oversight of the service and the care people received. This included the lack of oversight of; staff training, competencies, medicines management and risk management.

However, people and relatives knew who the registered manager was and spoke positively about them.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to do so.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place and staff were aware of this and the procedures they needed to follow.

The provider did not always demonstrate they valued diversity in their workforce.

The registered manager and nominated individual told us there were procedures in place to consider equality, diversity and inclusion, but were unable to provide any examples of this.

However, staff told us they felt they were treated in an inclusive way, and their needs were considered.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The nominated individual and the registered manager confirmed there were no audits in place that monitored medicines management, the timing of people’s calls, health and safety or staff performance.

There was no effective oversight or system in place that ensured staff were suitably skilled to provide safe and effective care. The training matrix we viewed did not consider all staff. We saw 1 audit of care records had been completed for 1 person in July 2026. This had not identified any concerns with the care this person received, despite us finding concerns during our inspection. There were no other audits available for us to review, as they had not been consistently completed.

The provider did not understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people.

The provider did not always work effectively with health professionals as referrals had not always been made where needed. This was in relation to people’s mobility needs.

There were no effective systems in place to ensure they worked in partnership with other agencies, as there was a lack of up-to-date information and oversight of people’s care. When changes occurred, information was not always documented to enable effective partnership working.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation.

The lack of effective systems in place meant there was no effective oversight of the care people received and the option to learn from events. As reported upon under ‘learning culture’, the registered manager and nominated individual confirmed this. The systems in place were not effective, had not identified all concerns, and had not driven improvements, which meant learning opportunities were missed.