The Firefly Club Care Home

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 effectively assess and review people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. At our last inspection, we found people’s care plans were not always detailed, person-centred, relevant or up to date. Although the registered manager was working with people, their loved ones and staff to develop new care plans and risk assessments, this was still in progress at the time of this inspection and needed further time to be embedded.

The provider sometimes planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We observed staff involving people in their care, and most people’s relatives told us they were involved in developing care plans. A relative told us, “The care home manager involves us in the care planning and risk assessments. We are always invited to share our opinions and review the documentation”. At the time of our inspection care plans were still being developed to ensure information was accurate and person-centred. This meant we could not yet be assured people were receiving consistent support.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider sometimes supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, there was no clear monitoring process for a person who had a recurrent wound on their foot. This meant there was a risk staff may not identify signs of deterioration in a timely manner and act promptly. When we raised this with the registered manager, they told us they would discuss this with a health professional to implement an effective monitoring process. However, we found other areas where people were supported to manage their health and wellbeing, such as promoting healthier meal choices.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The provider identified a need for regular keyworker meetings and a clear keyworker framework to effectively monitor and improve outcomes for people in audits completed in October 2025, January 2026 and an external audit in February 2026. Although the service was working to set clear key worker responsibilities and source training, at the time of our inspection this had not yet been completed.

The provider did not always act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated code of practice.

At our last inspection, we found decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decision processes were not always followed to ensure any restrictions were the least restrictive option. At this inspection we found the number of restrictions imposed on people had greatly reduced. However, although care plans were in the process of being reviewed, mental capacity assessments were not being reviewed as part of this process. In addition, mental capacity assessments were not being completed when new decisions were made or restrictions imposed. For example, where a person’s wardrobe was being locked. This meant people were exposed to the risk of being unlawfully restricted.