Bersim Care Ltd Office

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 a consistent service delivery.
 

This service scored 71 (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.

People and their relatives told us they felt people were at the heart of how their care, support and treatment was delivered, and care focussed on what was important to them. Staff understood what it meant to provide person-centred care and people confirmed this. A relative told us “They know [Person], they know what’s unusual for [person].” In addition to recording core ‘tasks’, the electronic care system enabled staff to capture people’s moods during interactions, which could be used to generate a report to assess people’s wellbeing. This showed care was person centred and not task focussed. However, as outlined in other areas of this report, records needed to improve to ensure they contained person centred information which evidenced that care delivery aligned with people’s needs and records of care reflected that.
 

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 experienced continuity of care from a regular team of care staff they were familiar with. The registered manager understood the importance of this when planning care for those with more complex needs and told us how consistent scheduling and clear communication had led to improvements in the quality of life for a person, whilst also considering the important role of unpaid carers. Leadership were alert and responsive to any potential changes to people’s commissioned needs, monitoring and escalating possible increases and decreases in care where required.
 

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

People’s communication needs were assessed when they started using the service and recorded in care plans. This included information about people’s vision, hearing and speech. Although we saw no evidence of anyone requiring information in any alternative formats, a recent information return from the provider showed they understood this may be required and would be available, for example by providing documents in large print or audio formats. Relatives told us staff communicated with people effectively in line with their communication needs. People could access their records if they needed to, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of keeping people’s information safe and secure.
 

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.

The provider welcomed people’s views on the service and provided opportunities for people to share them. A survey had been sent to people and their relatives to gather their feedback, and a person also told us they had been asked for feedback when they had previously left the service. Although no improvement ideas had been received, the registered manager told us they would use any future comments to improve the service. We saw staff meetings were used as an opportunity to share people’s views and compliments, ensuring people’s views were shared across the wider team.

Whilst no complaints had been received by the service at the time of our inspection, clear information was available to enable people to share complaints when needed, and there was a clearly defined process for managing these.
 

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

People told us they did not experience any barriers when accessing their care and treatment and told us the service was flexible in its approach. People knew how to contact the service, including outside of normal working hours, and did not experience any difficulty when doing so.
 

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.

The service had embedded the principles of equality, diversity and inclusion into their organisational culture. Key documents including service user guides, assessments and policies outlined clear expectations around the equitable treatment of people and staff. Staff had received equality, diversity and inclusion training to strengthen their understanding in this area and to support them in delivering equitable care.
 

Records did not demonstrate people had been supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including, but not limited to, at the end of their life.

Although care plans included sections to capture key decisions such as any end of life wishes, preferences and details of any advanced decisions, they did not include enough information to evidence people had been engaged in meaningful discussions on this topic. Some care plans were blank, others showed conversations had been held, but information included in the care plan was minimal. A ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) form is a clinical document designed to communicate a person's preferences for care and treatment in emergency situations. Where RESPECT forms were held, care plans did not include any information to inform staff they were in place, which could lead to inappropriate treatment, which does not reflect people’s wishes, during a medical emergency.