- Homecare service
Senad Community Ltd-Coventry
Assessment report published 24 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Senad Community is a supported living service providing personal care to autistic people and people with a learning disability in their own homes. Many people had complex communication, health, sensory and emotional needs. The reason for assessment was due to an aged rating. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities. The provider was meeting the principles of right support, right care, right culture, and this was strongly reflected in people’s care, support and outcomes.
The provider had a strong, embedded and proactive learning culture. Staff and leaders used incidents, safeguarding activity, audits, reflective practice, staff feedback and electronic systems to identify themes and drive improvement. Risks were assessed and managed positively. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of individual risks and were confident in supporting people while encouraging positive risk-taking. Staff supported people outside of their homes to increase independence, build confidence and access meaningful opportunities, using the least restrictive approach. People’s homes were assessed and adapted to meet their physical, sensory and emotional needs.
People received highly personalised and effective care from staff who knew them well. Staff used specialist guidance, including learning disability and autism training, training in safe intervention approaches, speech and language therapy guidance, health protocols and professional advice. Staff recognised changes in people’s health, escalated concerns and supported people to access health services. People achieved meaningful and sustained outcomes across the service, including developing daily living skills, engaging more consistently with health support and gaining greater independence.
Staff treated people with warmth, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s communication, routines and preferences, and used this knowledge to promote choice and control. People and relatives were involved in care planning and feedback. Staff shared information in ways people could understand, although some communication and follow-up could be strengthened.
The provider was well-led by effective, capable and committed leaders. Governance systems, audits, electronic records, complaints monitoring and a live quality improvement plan helped leaders identify risk, strengthen practice and improve the service. Leaders worked proactively and effectively with partners, including health, social care and housing agencies, to improve people’s safety, wellbeing and community experiences.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives were positive about the care and support they received. People told us they felt safe; staff were kind and listened to them. People said staff supported them with medicines, meals, shopping, walks, appointments and activities. One person told us staff made them happy. Another person said staff asked before helping and respected when they said no.
Some people could not verbally tell us about their experiences or could only give limited feedback. We gathered people’s views by considering their preferred communication methods, body language, facial expressions and interactions with staff. We reviewed peoples care records, relatives’ feedback and staff knowledge of how people communicated comfort, distress, choice or refusal.
Relatives told us staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, patience and dignity. They said staff understood people’s routines, communication and signs of distress. Relatives described examples where staff supported people to become more independent, including developing personal care routines, eating more independently, accessing the community and building confidence outside their homes. One relative said staff supported their family member to do things they would not have known how to do themselves.
People were supported to make choices about their daily lives. Staff used pictures, gestures, objects, body language, familiar routines and time to help people understand options and express preferences. People were supported to access shops, parks, places of worship, holidays, appointments and social activities.
People and relatives knew how to raise concerns. The provider recorded complaints and feedback, allocated actions to named staff and followed up concerns. Feedback evidenced people received personalised care from staff who knew them well and wanted them to live good lives.