Clover Healthcare

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 service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff described how they involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care, offering choices and adapting their approach to suit each person’s routines and wishes. Relatives told us they felt staff recognised people as individuals and supported them in ways that respected their independence, abilities and preferred ways of doing things.

Care plans were generally comprehensive and provided staff with the information needed to support people safely. Communication needs were clearly recorded, helping staff understand how best to engage with people and ensure they were able to express themselves. One staff member said, “People’s preferences are recorded in their person-centred care plans. This includes routines, cultural needs, dietary choices and how they prefer their care delivered.” However, some care plans would benefit from more person-centred detail to further reflect people’s individuality, preferences and what was important to them in their daily lives. Strengthening this detail would help ensure that the personalised support staff described in practice is consistently mirrored in written records.

Overall, people experienced care that was tailored to their needs, delivered by staff who knew them well and supported them in a respectful, compassionate and person-centred way.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us they received a reliable service, with staff who understood their routines and needs and provided care in a consistent and well organized way.

Staff communicated effectively with each other and with external professionals to ensure people experienced smooth transitions between different services. Information was shared appropriately, and staff described clear systems for passing on updates when people’s needs changed. This helped ensure people did not have to repeat their story unnecessarily and that support remained coordinated.

The service also had a well managed referral process, and leaders engaged with external agencies, ensuring the service could respond to people’s needs promptly and appropriately. People told us they felt confident that staff worked together to provide care that was responsive and well-integrated.

Overall, people experienced care that was continuous, well planned and delivered by staff who worked collaboratively across teams and with external partners to support positive outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw good person-centred communication care plans, which included prompts to guide staff on how to communicate effectively with each person. These plans clearly outlined people’s communication needs, helping staff share information in a way that people could understand and respond to.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and were able to tell us how they ensured information was adapted when people had specific communication or accessibility requirements. Staff were able to explain how they applied the AIS in practice, including adapting communication methods, checking people’s understanding, and ensuring information was accessible and personalised.

Relatives told us communication with staff and leaders was good. They said they were kept informed about any changes, felt confident approaching the service with questions, and received timely updates about their family member’s care. This helped people and families feel involved, reassured and well supported.

Overall, people experienced a service that communicated clearly, consistently and in ways personalised to their needs, supporting good outcomes and shared understanding across staff, people and relatives.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in care planning, risk assessments and reviews. They said staff listened to them, respected their views and ensured they had a say in how their support was delivered.

Staff and leaders told us they routinely consulted with people to ensure care was coproduced. They described how they checked people’s preferences, clarified their choices, and adapted support when people’s needs or wishes changed. This helped ensure people experienced care that reflected what mattered to them.

However, although people were involved in their care in practice, the documentation did not consistently evidence this. Care plans and review records did not always show how people or their relatives had contributed to decisions. This reduced the provider’s ability to demonstrate a fully person-centred and collaborative approach in written records.

The registered manager told us that satisfaction surveys had previously been completed for both people and staff, but the results had not been analysed under the former manager. There were clear plans in place to improve this process and ensure feedback is reviewed, learning is gathered and actions are taken where needed.

Overall, people experienced a service that listened to them, valued their input and worked in partnership with them. Strengthening documentation and feedback processes will further support the provider to evidence this good practice consistently.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

During the assessment, we did not identify any concerns or barriers relating to people’s ability to access the service. There was no evidence to suggest that anyone was disadvantaged or unable to receive support in a timely or consistent way.

People received care in line with their assessed needs, and staff ensured that support was delivered reliably and as planned. Although there were no particularly positive or negative findings in this area, the evidence available showed that people experienced equitable access to the service and that staff responded appropriately when needs changed.

Overall, the service demonstrated steps had been taken to ensure people received the care and support they were entitled to without avoidable delay or inequality.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

During the assessment, we did not identify any concerns or inconsistencies in how people experienced the service. There was no evidence that anyone was treated less favourably or that people’s outcomes differed due to personal characteristics, background or support needs.

People received care that was consistent, respectful and aligned with their assessed needs. Relatives told us they were confident their family members were well supported, and staff demonstrated an inclusive and person-centred approach in their day-to-day practice. This helped ensure people experienced reliable care and positive outcomes, regardless of their individual circumstances.

Overall, the service demonstrated steps had been taken to ensure equality, fairness or the consistency of people’s experiences and outcomes

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.

Of the care plans we reviewed, only one person had an end-of-life care plan in place. This plan did not include personalised details about how the person wished to be supported at the very end of their life. It only noted their request for a ReSPECT / DNAR form, and did not explore the person’s broader wishes, priorities, preferred place of care, or the type of emotional, spiritual or practical support they would want. The absence of person-centred end of life planning meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were being supported to make informed decisions about their future care or that their wishes were being considered and recorded in a meaningful way. There was also limited evidence that people approaching the end of their life were identified early or that future planning was discussed proactively.

While we did not find evidence that people had been placed at risk or that their choices were disregarded, the limited documentation reduced the service’s ability to evidence good practice. Improvements are needed to ensure end of life care planning is considered for all relevant individuals and that plans clearly reflect what matters most to the person.