Clover Healthcare

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 service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People’s relatives told us that staff were kind, friendly and caring in the way they supported their family members. On relative said, “[Person] feels safe and quite happy with them (staff). They chat away.” Relatives said staff took time to get to know people and interacted with them in a warm and respectful manner, which helped people feel comfortable and safe.

Staff were able to clearly describe how they maintained people’s dignity when delivering personal care. One staff member said, “I explain what I’m doing, respect their dignity, cover them appropriately and promote independence.” Staff explained how they ensured people’s privacy was protected, how they offered reassurance, and how they involved people in decisions about their care to promote independence and choice.

The registered manager told us they completed regular spot checks to monitor the quality of care, including observing staff interactions with people to ensure dignity, respect and compassion were consistently upheld. We saw documented evidence of these checks within the service’s quality monitoring processes, demonstrating that leaders actively oversaw practice to maintain and reinforce high standards.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Relatives told us that staff had a good understanding of their family members’ needs and supported them in a way that reflected their routines, preferences and what mattered to them. They felt staff recognised people as individuals and adjusted their approach accordingly.

Although no one using the service at the time of the assessment had specific cultural or religious needs, staff were able to clearly explain the importance of understanding and respecting these aspects of a person’s identity. They described how they would gather this information, how it would influence care planning, and how they would work with people to ensure their needs were met appropriately. One staff member said, “Some people I have supported have had cultural and religious needs. These are clearly recorded in their care plans. I support these by respecting dietary requirements, prayer times, clothing preferences, and cultural routines. I made sure care is delivered in a way that respects their beliefs and values, and I ask for guidance if I am unsure to ensure care remains person-centred and respectful.” This showed staff were knowledgeable and prepared to deliver inclusive, culturally sensitive care where required.

Communication needs were detailed within people’s care plans, helping staff understand how best to share information and ensure people could express their wishes and preferences. Care plans were generally comprehensive, but some would benefit from more person-centred detail to further reflect people’s individuality and day-to-day choices.

Overall, staff demonstrated a positive commitment to treating people as individuals. Strengthening the personalised detail within care plans would enhance the service’s ability to evidence this good practice consistently.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Relatives told us that people were supported to remain as independent as possible and to have control over their day-to-day lives. They said staff encouraged people to do what they could for themselves and supported them in ways that respected their preferences, abilities and routines. They said staff encouraged people to do what they could for themselves and supported them in ways that respected their preferences, abilities and routines.

Staff described how they promoted independence in practice, including offering choices, explaining tasks before carrying them out, and involving people in decisions about their care. They told us they always checked what people wanted and supported them in a way that maintained dignity and encouraged autonomy.

However, while staff practice reflected a strong focus on independence and choice, some people’s documentation needed improvement to fully support lawful decision-making. Mental capacity assessments were not always clearly recorded, sufficiently evidenced or specific to the decision being assessed. Where someone lacked capacity to consent to aspects of their care plan, there was no documented evidence of best interest decisions being completed. These gaps meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people’s choices and rights were being supported within the legal framework.

Despite this, people and relatives consistently reported experiencing a service that helped them feel in control of their care, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how to promote independence in day-to-day practice. Strengthening documentation will help ensure that what staff do in practice is fully reflected in written records and aligned with legal requirements.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We saw evidence of positive behaviour support plans that clearly identified potential triggers of distress for one person and set out effective deescalation strategies. These plans were detailed and person-centred, helping staff understand how to respond promptly and sensitively if a person became anxious or unsettled. However, there was no evidence that any incidents of distress had occurred, suggesting that people’s immediate needs were being met well and that proactive support strategies were effective in preventing escalation. These plans were detailed and person-centred, helping staff understand how to respond promptly and sensitively if a person became anxious or unsettled. However, there was

Staff knew the individuals they supported well and were able to describe how they recognised and responded to changes in people’s mood, wellbeing or health needs. One staff member said, “If someone I support became upset, I would remain calm and patient, listen to them, and try to understand what is causing their distress. I would offer reassurance, give them time and space if needed, and use approaches that are known to help them, as outlined in their care plan. If the upset continued or there were concerns about their wellbeing, I would report this and record it so further support could be arranged.”

Overall, people experienced consistent and timely responses from staff who understood how to support them safely and effectively in the moment.

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

Staff spoke positively about the management team and told us they felt valued and supported in their roles. One staff member described a positive experience when they raised concerns about driver staffing levels as the service began to take on more clients. They told us managers listened, took the concern seriously and acted to resolve it, which helped staff feel confident that their wellbeing and workload were considered when decisions were made.

Another staff member told us that the team were sometimes taken out for dinner as part of team meetings. They felt this created a more relaxed environment for open discussion and reflection. The registered manager also spoke about how staff responded positively to having difficult or sensitive conversations in a comfortable setting, while ensuring confidentiality was fully protected. This helped strengthen team relationships and supported a culture of openness and trust.

Overall, staff reported feeling supported, respected and able to contribute to improvements. This positive culture helped ensure staff were enabled to provide compassionate, person-centred care.