Bersim Care Ltd Office

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.

This service scored 75 (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.

Relatives told us the staff team knew their family members well, were kind and spent time building positive relationships with people. Comments included, “They are friendly and helpful. Very professional and caring”, “[Person] thinks the world of them. [Person]tells me the [care staff] come in and have a cup of tea and chat,” and, “I’ve had experience of other care agencies. I would go to this one every time.” The leadership team had embedded a strong ethos of kindness, caring and compassion and this was evident throughout the inspection. Staff understood people’s personal stories and backgrounds and showed a genuine interest in people’s lives. Staff had received training in dignity, privacy and respect to enable them to provide respectful and dignified care.
 

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 culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. However, records did not always clearly outline people’s strengths, abilities and aspirations.

People’s individual needs were widely understood by staff because care plans included information about their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Care plans included people’s preferred pronouns, preferred name, gender and gender at birth, sexuality and information about their religious beliefs. A relative told us staff respected their religious beliefs, they said, “I’m a Christian. They [staff] totally understand, they have lovely conversations with [Person].” Although we received feedback that suggested people’s strengths, abilities, personal goals and aspirations were supported, care plans did not include enough information about people’s existing skills to ensure they were enabled to retain and build on these.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us staff gave them choice and they were supported to be in control of the way their care was delivered. One relative told us, “They [care staff] always give [Person] a choice. For lunch, they will show [person] 3 different options, [person] will pick which one [they] want. They will give [person] lunch and if [they] do not like it, they will give [person] something else. They never say, ‘that’s what you’ve got’. [Person] can be a bit picky, but they always give [person] the option.” Daily records confirmed staff consistently promoted choice and autonomy in day to day support, for example, by offering different meal options and respecting people’s right to refuse care interventions. A relative told us the service had worked flexibly with them when their relative regained their independence. They said “They [registered manager] told me [person] was becoming more independent, so reduced their care hours. It was very flexible.”

However, as outlined in the safeguarding and consent sections of this report, records needed to improve to ensure people’s voice was captured in care plans.
 

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.

People told us they felt the service were responsive to their immediate needs and responded promptly to any urgent requests for help. Staff understood and responded to people’s needs quickly enough to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. A relative told us “One morning [Person] was unsteady, within seconds they [care staff] had the wheelchair there. It is important to [Person] to do as much as they can [independently]. They do that, they are there ready. They don’t touch [person], but it’s real security.”
 

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

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the service and felt that leadership respected them and supported them well. They said they had a manageable workload and did not feel rushed, which contributed to their wellbeing at work.

Staff received robust support throughout their induction period, including regular spot checks, shadowing opportunities and joint visits with the registered manager. A staff member said “We have enough staff to cater for our clients. I have adequate time to complete my visits, including drive time and I do not feel rushed. I have had planned supervisions, spot checks and meetings. We discuss challenges faced, any areas for improvement, any changes to our clients’ care plan and generally, how we are doing. I feel supported and seen especially when my [registered] manager shows concern about my wellbeing.” However, recording of staff support needed to improve to ensure it was tailored and reflected each staff member’s individual achievements and goals. No formal staff recognition schemes were in place due to there being a very small team, but the registered manager told us this was something they would think about as the team grew. We saw staff had been informally rewarded periodically for their work, for example with gift hampers during the festive period.