Senad Community Ltd-Coventry

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.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.
 

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff worked with people and those important to them to respond when people’s needs, wishes or routines changed.

Care plans included information about people’s daily routines, communication, relationships, health needs, risks, activities, sensory needs and preferences. This helped staff support people in a way that reflected their individual needs rather than using a generic approach. This was important because the service supported autistic people, people who had a learning disability, people who did not communicate verbally or people who needed staff to understand their actions, body language and presentation.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives. One person told us they chose to go shopping, visit the pet shop, go to McDonald’s and go for a walk. They said staff helped them with medicines and meals, and they could say no. This showed staff supported the person to have control over ordinary routines and activities.

Staff adapted care when people’s behaviour showed their needs were not being met. In one example, staff identified that a person was regularly not using the bathroom to use the toilet. Leaders investigated what the person may have been communicating and found the sensory feel of the toilet floor was a barrier. Staff changed the environment and support approach, which helped the person use the toilet. This protected the person’s dignity, reduced distress and showed staff used person-centred problem-solving to improve the person’s daily life.

Relatives gave positive feedback about person-centred support. They said staff knew people well, understood their routines and involved relatives when support needed to change. Staff also worked with relatives to consider new activities and opportunities for people, including countryside walks, scenic car journeys and community activities.

The provider responded when people’s needs changed. Staff updated care plans, shared information through electronic records and escalated concerns to managers or professionals when needed. This helped people receive support that reflected their current needs. However, some relatives wanted communication about activities and follow-up actions to be strengthened.

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 received support from staff who knew them well. This was important because many people needed consistent staff to understand their communication, routines, risks and signs of distress. The provider avoided routine use of agency staff and used regular staff, bank staff familiar with people, team leaders and managers to cover gaps where needed. This helped reduce the risks associated with unfamiliar staff.

The provider used electronic care records, handovers, emails, staff phones, supervision and team meetings to share information about people’s needs. This helped staff understand changes in people’s care, follow professional guidance and provide consistent support.

Care was flexible when people’s needs changed. Staff escalated concerns to managers or professionals, and leaders used care plan reviews and daily records to update support arrangements. This helped people continue receiving support that reflected their current communication, health, emotional and practical needs.

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

The provider’s care plans included information about people’s preferred communication methods. Staff used speech, objects, pictures, gestures, facial expressions, body language, Makaton and familiar routines to share information and understand people’s responses. This helped people who did not communicate verbally to take part in decisions about their care and daily lives.

Staff also shared information with relatives and professionals. Feedback from relatives highlighted that managers and staff kept them informed about incidents, appointments, changes and concerns. One relative told us, “Communication with the manager is great and they keep me updated when needed.” This helped relatives feel involved and reassured about their relatives’ support.

Information was shared between staff through electronic care records, handovers, staff phones, emails, supervision and team meetings. This helped staff understand changes in people’s needs and follow current guidance. Care plans were reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed.

The provider promoted accessible communication and people’s rights to privacy and consent. Staff shared information with relatives where people had consented, or where people lacked capacity and sharing information had been considered in their best interests. However, some feedback showed relatives wanted better communication about activities, diet and follow-up actions. One relative told us, “I would like more information about what my relative is getting up to and the planned activities they have.”

The provider promoted accessible communication and people’s rights to privacy and consent. Staff shared information with relatives where people had consented, or where people lacked capacity and sharing information had been considered in their best interests. However, some feedback showed relatives wanted better communication about activities, diet and follow-up actions. One relative told us, “I would like more information about what my relative is getting up to and the planned activities they have.”

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.

People were encouraged to express views in ways that worked for them. Staff used people’s preferred communication methods, including body language, gestures, facial expressions and familiar routines, to understand whether people were happy, distressed or wanted something to change. This was important because many people did not communicate verbally.

Relatives and professionals raised concerns when they needed to. The provider kept a complaints log which showed concerns were allocated to named staff and actions were recorded. For example, one relative raised concern about self-harm risk. The provider arranged a face-to-face meeting and continued monthly meetings to discuss concerns. A neighbour raised concerns about noise. The provider considered soundproofing, monitored daytime activity and communicated with a social worker to find a reasonable and responsible solution.

One professional raised concern about communication, activities and medical follow-up for one person. The provider sent same-day follow-up emails, alerted senior staff and completed actions linked to medical advice.

This showed feedback was taken seriously and acted on. However, the evidence also showed some concerns about communication and responsiveness.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff made reasonable adjustments to reduce barriers linked to autism, learning disability, communication needs, sensory demands, anxiety and risk.

People were supported by staff who understood how to adapt communication and support. Staff used familiar routines, visual prompts, reassurance, gradual exposure and known communication methods to help people access ordinary community opportunities. This helped people who may otherwise have been excluded from activities because of communication barriers, distress or sensory needs.

One person was supported to attend Christmas Mass for the first time. Staff introduced this gradually and supported the person in short, manageable stages so the experience did not become overwhelming. This helped the person access a meaningful religious and community activity in a way that reflected their sensory and emotional needs.

Staff also supported people to access shops, parks, appointments, community spaces and social activities. Staff planned support around people’s individual needs wishes and risks, including road safety, communication, anxiety, sensory needs and health conditions. Where people needed additional support, staff adapted the approach rather than excluding the person from the activity.

People benefited because staff removed barriers and supported access to ordinary life.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff adapted communication, routines, environments and activities to reflect people’s needs. This helped people receive support in a way that promoted dignity, rights and involvement. This was important because the service supported autistic people, people who had a learning disability, people who did not communicate verbally or people who required support to understand information and express choices.

The provider also considered wider equality issues. Staff recognised that people’s culture, religion, gender, identity and personal history affected how they wanted to be supported. In one example, staff identified that a person’s cultural assumptions about gender roles risked reducing the person’s opportunities to develop domestic skills. Staff changed the support approach, so the person was encouraged and taught to take part in cleaning and household routines. This helped challenge restrictive assumptions and gave the person more opportunity to develop independence.

People’s experiences and outcomes improved when staff adapted support around their needs. People accessed community activities, developed daily living skills and received support that reflected their communication and sensory needs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans and reviews included information about their goals, relationships, risks, health needs and future support needs. Staff worked with relatives and professionals when people needed changes to their support arrangements, activities or living environment. This helped people experience change in a planned and supported way.

Records included information about future wishes where this was relevant. Most people were younger adults and did not have legal advance care plans or DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) decisions in place. However, people’s care plans showed the provider had considered people’s future wishes and preferences. In one example, a person’s family had completed a non-legally binding end-of-life plan, which recorded the person’s wishes, preferences and religious values. The care plan stated that if formal advance care planning was needed in the future, staff would work with the person, their family and relevant people to develop a person-centred plan. This helped staff understand what mattered to the person and how their wishes should be respected if their circumstances changed.

The provider responded when people’s needs or circumstances changed. For example, following a neighbour’s complaint, the provider reviewed the person’s daytime activity, considered environmental factors and worked with social care on new arrangements. Records showed the person later moved to accommodation that was more suitable for their needs. This helped the provider consider the person’s needs, the impact on others and the support arrangements required for the future.

Staff also supported people and relatives to think about new opportunities, including community activities, increased independence and future routines. One relative told us, “I am involved in care planning and discussions about changes.”