Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory

Creative Support - Wolverhampton Service, 22 Cleveland Road, Wolverhampton.

Creative Support - Wolverhampton Service in 22 Cleveland Road, Wolverhampton is a Homecare agencies and Supported living specialising in the provision of services relating to learning disabilities, mental health conditions and personal care. The last inspection date here was 19th June 2019

Creative Support - Wolverhampton Service is managed by Creative Support Limited who are also responsible for 112 other locations

Contact Details:

      Creative Support - Wolverhampton Service
      The Boot Factory
      22 Cleveland Road
      WV2 1BH
      United Kingdom


For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Service Provider:

    Creative Support Limited

This provider also manages:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-06-19
    Last Published 2016-11-18

Local Authority:


Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

28th September 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 28 September 2016 and was announced. Creative Support – Wolverhampton Service provides community support and personal care to adults with learning disabilities and mental health issues. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people receiving personal care.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s relatives told us they were confident their family members were safe with the staff who provided their care and support. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from harm and knew how to report any concerns about people’s safety. Risks to people had been assess and were managed in a way that did not restrict people. Some relatives felt their family members would benefit from a more consistent staff team. There were systems in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed safely.

People were supported by a staff team who had received training to ensure they had the skills required to meet their needs. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. People were asked for their consent before care and support was provided. People received support to maintain a healthy diet and were assisted to access healthcare services when required.

People were supported by staff who were friendly and kind. Staff knew people’s needs and preferences and people were supported to make their own decisions where possible. Staff understood the importance of supporting people in a way that protected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

People and their relatives were involved in the planning, delivery and review of their care and support. Staff knew people well and were aware of people’s likes and dislikes. People were aware of who to contact if they were unhappy about any aspect of their care and support and there was a system in place to manage complaints.

People, relatives and social care professionals expressed positive views about the service. People and their relatives had been asked to give feedback about the service they received. This was then used to develop and improve the service. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the standards of care and support provided and the provider was aware of their responsibilities as a registered person.

5th February 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We were unable to speak with any of the people that used the service due to their complex needs. However we spoke with the relatives of three people that used the service. We also spoke with six staff and the registered manager. We looked at the care records of six people that used the service which provided information on the needs of each person.

We found that people were supported to make choices and decisions about the care that they received. Where people were unable to make decisions for themselves the provider had involved the people that knew them best to make decisions about the care they received.

We found that relatives we spoke with were happy about the care people received. One relative told us it was: "The care is really quite good".

We found that there were sufficient staff recruitment systems in place.

We found that the provider had systems in place to measure the quality of the service provided.

7th January 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with two people and the relative of a person that used the agency. We also spoke with three care workers, the manager and the area manager.

People told us that, “Yes feel involved”. They told us that they had seen their support plans and confirmed that these reflected the support that they wanted.

We looked at three people’s care records and found that these set out people’s support needs clearly and were updated on a regular basis. We spoke with people and they told us that the care and support they received reflected want they wanted. One person said they were, “Happy with care” they received.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People’s involvement and consent to medications were managed in a way that protected them against risks associated with medicines.

Care workers told us that they were well supported by the manager and that they received regular and sufficient training that allowed them to do their jobs well.

People who used the service, their representatives and stakeholders were asked for their views about how the agency performed.



Latest Additions: