Senad Community Ltd-Coventry

Updated 11 May 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 72 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure staff we needed to speak with would be available.

This inspection was completed by one inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information included in the PIR along with information we held about the service, for example, statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

Prior to the inspection we received feedback from six health and social care professionals who worked with the service.

We spoke with three people who were supported by the service and who had limited verbal communication. We also spoke with one one relative. We spoke with the registered manager, the provider and five members of staff.

We reviewed records which included four people's care plans, three staff recruitment and supervision records and records relating to the management of the service.

The service was previously inspected in September 2016 and was rated as “Good.”

Updated 11 May 2018

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 January 2017 and was announced. This was to ensure people and staff we needed to speak to were available to speak with us.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older people and younger adults with dementia, physical disabilities, mental health needs or learning disabilities or an autistic spectrum disorder. The service provides both a home care and support service and a live-in care service. This service was previously inspected in September 2016 and was rated as “Good.”

At the time of the inspection there were seven people using the service who received the regulated activity of personal care. Not everyone using SENAD Community Coventry receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided .

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 were extremely satisfied with the quality of the service they received. The registered manager provided clear leadership to the staff team and was valued by people, staff and the provider. There was a positive culture and the provider's value system placed people at the heart of the service. There was a whole team culture whose focus was on how could they do things better for people.

There was a strong focus on continually striving to improve. There were robust processes in place to seek people's views on the service and monitor the quality of the service. Information from customer surveys and the actions the provider took were shared openly and honestly with people. Feedback from people through surveys and complaints was used to continually drive service improvement.

The provider valued their staff and saw them as an asset to deliver high quality care to people. They appreciated that people wanted consistency in their care and that the way to achieve this was through staff retention. To achieve this they had identified a range of ways to retain their staff which enabled them to attract and retain good quality staff to deliver high quality care to people.

People and their relatives told us the service was safe. Staff had undergone relevant training and understood their role in relation to safeguarding people and the actions they should take to keep people safe from the risk of abuse.

People told us staff managed any risks to them well. There were robust processes in place to ensure risks to people were identified and managed whilst also promoting people's independence and their right to take risks. Staff understood how risks to people were managed and were observed to follow the written guidance provided. There were processes in place to protect people and the security of their home when they received support. People were supported by a consistent staff team who they knew and trusted.

The provider used their electronic systems to ensure only staff with the correct training and skills were rostered to provide people's care. People's support was monitored and office staff took immediate action to address any issues to ensure people's safety.

Robust recruitment checks had been completed to ensure staff were suitable to work with people who used the service.

People received their medicines from trained staff whose competency had been assessed to ensure they received their medicines safely.

Any feedback from healthcare professionals was provided to staff to ensure they had up to date guidance about people's healthcare needs and how to meet them. People were supported to maintain good health and to access health care services as required.

People told us staff had sought their consent for their care and treatment. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received relevant training and understood the principles of the Act. People's consent to their care had been sought in line with legislation and guidance.

People consistently told us staff were well trained. Staff underwent a rigorous induction programme prior to providing people's care. The dignity care staff champion shared their learning with peers. The registered manager had used innovative and creative ways of training and developing staff that enabled them to apply their learning in their practice in order to deliver outstanding care for people.

The provider had developed strong links with the local community. They worked alongside other organisations to ensure they followed current good practice in the delivery of people's care.

There was a strong focus on the use of technology in the delivery of people's care and the provider understood how its' use could improve people's experience of the care staff provided. People's care was being delivered more safely, effectively and responsively due to the provider's utilisation of technology to support the planning, delivery and monitoring of care.

There was a strong emphasis on the importance of people eating and drinking well. The provider's full utilisation of the electronic recording system meant they could very effectively monitor if people had received their required support with eating and drinking. Any issues were picked up promptly through the instant electronic feedback to the office staff from care staff' records of the care they had provided to people.

People and stakeholders consistently praised staff for their caring attitudes. The registered manager and staff were able to tell us about how they supported people in a caring and kindly manner.

People unanimously told us that staff consulted them about how they wanted their care to be provided and gave them choices about their care. Staff offered people choices about all aspects of the care they were providing to them. People's preferences were recorded in their care plans for staff to consult.

Staff understood people's communication needs and used non-verbal communication methods where required to interact with people.

Everyone we spoke with told us staff ensured their dignity and privacy was promoted. People were treated with respect by staff, and that staff had considered how people's rights to privacy could be compromised and had taken appropriate action to ensure their privacy.

People consistently told us they received personalised care from care staff who understood their care needs. People's care and support needs were planned proactively in partnership with them and they had individualised care plans that were delivered by skilled staff. staff

External agencies confirmed to us that the service was flexible and responsive to people's needs.

The provider had a compliments, concerns and complaints policy which outlined to people how and to whom they could address any concerns they had with the service. People told us they knew how to complain if they needed to and that if they had raised an issue it had been promptly addressed. People had been provided with information about how to complain, staff understood their role and the service had been responsive to any issues raised .