Senad Community Ltd-Coventry

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding.
 

This service scored 89 (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 had a very clear shared vision and culture focused on human rights, inclusion, independence and improving people’s quality of life. Staff and leaders understood the challenges people faced and worked together to support people to live fuller lives in their communities.

Staff spoke positively about working at the service and described a culture where they felt valued, supported and motivated. Staff were passionate about promoting consistent, person-centred support for people. One staff member chose to remain working for the provider despite travelling a long distance to do so. They told us the ethos and culture of the service, and its commitment to people, made them want to continue working there. This meant the person they supported continued to receive care from a familiar and experienced staff member who understood their communication, routines and risks.

The provider promoted a culture where staff were skilled, knowledgeable and confident. This meant they could proactively support people to achieve their full potential. Staff supported people to build skills, access the community, maintain relationships and gain independence. This was reflected in outcomes across the service, including people moving into their own homes, accessing new opportunities and becoming more independent with familiar support.

Professionals gave very positive feedback about the culture of the service. One professional told us, “The provider deserves excellent praise; they are truly exceptional.” They said staff understood people with high support needs and worked constructively with partners. Another professional said staff were “all on the same page” and went beyond what they usually saw from services.

The provider showed they had embedded a shared culture that truly valued people as individuals. This had a very positive impact because staff fully focused on people’s rights, relationships, safety and independence, and this helped people achieve meaningful outcomes. This deeply embedded culture meant people experienced care that was not only safe and effective but meaningful, enjoyable and empowering.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider had identified leadership development as an ongoing priority. The quality improvement plan included actions to strengthen the registered manager’s oversight role, upskill deputy managers and develop operations managers. The plan focused on governance, compliance, safeguarding, audits, incident follow-up, multidisciplinary working, electronic systems and communication. This showed the provider understood the need to strengthen leadership capacity as the service grew.

Managers supported staff through supervision, spot checks, observations, team meetings and on-call arrangements. Staff could contact managers for advice and support when they were unsure or when people’s needs changed. Managers and senior staff also supported care delivery when needed, which helped maintain continuity for people.

The provider’s quality improvement plan showed deputy managers had been upskilled to communicate fundamental standards, values, principles of care, governance and MCA to their teams. This helped create more consistent leadership across the service and reduced reliance on one person.

Staff gave mostly positive feedback about leadership. One staff member told us, “I feel like I am treated fairly, leaders are very inclusive and have supported me personally and professionally through really difficult times.” However, some staff felt recognition mechanisms could be improved across the service to better recognise the work staff were doing.

The provider was exceptional at fostering a positive culture where people knew they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff feedback was gathered through supervisions, staff forums, observations, spot checks, team discussions, incident debriefs and independent speak-up routes. These systems gave staff different ways to raise concerns, including when they did not feel able to raise issues directly with their line manager. Staff told us they felt able to speak up and ask for support. One staff member told us, “There is always someone to turn to.”

The provider did not look at staff concerns in isolation. Records showed leaders reviewed themes from staff feedback, incidents, safeguarding concerns, spot checks and supervision. This helped them identify where practice needed to improve across teams. The quality improvement plan showed staff feedback contributed to changes in targeted shadow shifts, supervision documents, governance actions and staff support.

Staff gave examples where speaking up led to practical change. In one example, staff raised that a community “go bag” would help make sure essential items were available when people accessed the community. The provider acted on this feedback. This helped staff respond more consistently when people were away from home and reduced the risk of important items being missed.

The provider strengthened supervision documents to include staff wellbeing, what made staff proud and “you said, we did” prompts. This helped staff see that feedback was listened to and acted on.

People benefited because staff concerns and ideas led to safer, more consistent support. The evidence showed staff voice influenced wider organisational learning and improvement.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. Leaders worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider considered staff circumstances when planning care packages. Staffing decisions included staff skills, training, travel, location, availability, gender where relevant and whether staff were suited to a person’s needs. This helped staff support people where they could provide consistent support and helped people receive care from staff who were appropriately matched to them.

The provider’s quality improvement plan included actions linked to equality, diversity, dignity, respect, inclusion and zero tolerance of harassment and discrimination. It also referred to creating an inclusive environment where people felt their voice was heard. This showed the provider had recognised the importance of equality and inclusion for both staff and people using the service.

Staff had access to supervision, training, forums and feedback routes. These helped staff raise concerns, discuss development needs and reflect on their practice. The provider also reviewed supervision documents to include staff wellbeing, what made staff proud and “you said, we did” prompts. This helped staff talk about their experiences and influence improvements.

The evidence showed the provider responded to staff as individuals and promoted inclusion.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had a proactive and structured approach to quality improvement and governance. Leaders used a live quality improvement plan to track progress, allocate actions and evaluate whether improvements had achieved their intended purpose. The plan focused on areas that directly affected safety, staff support and the quality of people’s care, including leadership development, audits and quality checks, electronic systems, night-time oversight and staff supervision.

Governance systems drew on a broad range of information. This included care plan audits, care outcome audits, medicines audits, incident audits, staff observations, supervision records, training audits and registered manager reports. This meant leaders did not rely on one source of assurance. They used different types of evidence to identify themes, check practice and focus improvement activity where it was needed.

Leaders used electronic call monitoring as a direct source of assurance about the delivery and timeliness of care. A review of this data found 100% punctuality, no short calls and effective delivery of double-up calls. Where the review identified recording gaps, including unlogged calls, overnight recording limitations and calls with no travel time, these were recognised as areas requiring continued management oversight. This showed leaders used electronic information to check the reliability of care delivery and identify where recording practice needed to improve.

The provider also responded to external scrutiny. Following a Home Office notice, the provider introduced 6-monthly share code checks for staff with time-limited permission to work. This strengthened the previous system by adding regular checks rather than relying only on staff members visa expiry dates. This showed leaders responded to regulatory risk and improved workforce compliance arrangements.

These arrangements showed governance was not limited to monitoring compliance. Leaders used structured improvement planning, audits, electronic data and learning from external scrutiny to maintain oversight, identify risk and strengthen practice. This demonstrated a proactive and responsive approach to governance, with clear attention to safety, quality, staff support, compliance and the sustainability of care.

The provider clearly understood and carried out its duty to collaborate and work in partnership. Staff and leaders shared information, worked with partners and developed community links that improved people’s inclusion, independence and quality of life.

The provider worked closely with housing partners to make sure people lived in suitable homes. A housing partner told us, “Communication with the provider is clear and responsive, property matters are always raised promptly and handled professionally.” This had a positive impact because property concerns were escalated quickly and people were supported to live in safer, more suitable homes.

The provider also worked with commissioners and social care teams when developing or changing support arrangements. A business development officer supported referrals and onboarding of new people, and registered managers or deputy managers were involved in assessments. This helped the provider understand people’s needs before support started and work with partners to plan safe transitions.

The provider developed meaningful links with local businesses, community groups, charities and activity providers. This went beyond supporting people to attend activities. Staff worked with local shops, swimming facilities, churches, restaurants, hairdressers, barbers and community venues which led to people being recognised, their needs and preferences understood and included in ordinary community life.

In one example, staff supported a person to access local shops, swimming facilities and church organisations. Staff helped community members understand how the person communicated, why they needed time to process information and how patience and space helped them take part. As a result, the person became known by people in their community and accessed activities with greater confidence. Local swimming staff also understood the person’s needs and support arrangements, which helped them attend regularly in a way that worked for them.

The provider also worked with venues and hospitality providers to make reasonable adjustments. This included considering sensory needs, lighting, noise, dietary requirements, accessibility and private spaces where people needed personal or clinical support, such as PEG feeding. This meant people could attend celebrations and community events that may otherwise have been inaccessible, while maintaining their dignity and inclusion.

In addition, the provider supported local businesses to make reasonable adjustments. For example, local hairdressers and barbers adapted appointments, seating arrangements and sensory triggers, and provided home appointments where needed. This helped people continue accessing valued community services in ways that protected their comfort, dignity and independence.

People were also supported to contribute to their communities through fundraising and charitable initiatives, including local food banks and charity events. This helped people develop confidence and a sense of belonging, while making a positive contribution to local causes.

Professionals described the provider as responsive, reliable and willing to work collaboratively. The evidence showed the provider did not work in isolation or simply react when concerns arose. It used partnership working to improve housing, plan support, reduce risk and help people become more recognised, included and valued within their communities.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Staff encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The provider used a structured quality improvement plan to organise and embed learning and improvement across the service. The plan recorded actions, progress and impact, which supported leaders to fully review whether changes were improving care, strengthening oversight and supporting better outcomes for people.

The provider embedded reflective practice into how staff learned from incidents, safeguarding concerns, medicines errors, staff feedback and observations. Staff and leaders used reflective meetings, supervision, targeted shadow shifts and team discussions to understand what had happened, what could be improved and how practice should change. This demonstrated an open learning approach, helped staff build confidence, reflect on their approach and provide more consistent support to people.

The provider used technology to strengthen oversight and identify where staff needed support. A new electronic system tracked care outcomes, staff profiles, safety information, spot checks, observations and routine checks. This helped leaders robustly review people’s support in real time and enabled staff to update short and long-term goals more effectively. Leaders used this information to identify patterns, check whether support was being delivered as planned and promptly respond when practice needed to improve.

One example of innovation related to overnight support. Leaders identified that staff working at night needed stronger real-time support and assurance, particularly because some staff worked alone and supported people with high support needs. In response, the provider introduced overnight management oversight from a night team leader based at the office. Waking night staff logged into the provider’s online system every 30 minutes, and staff had access to lone worker safety devices. This meant staff had immediate advice and escalation support overnight, and leaders had clear oversight and assurance that people were receiving safe and consistent care throughout the night.

This had a positive impact because staff were not left to manage complex situations in isolation. People benefited from more consistent oversight, quicker escalation if risks changed and safer support from staff who had access to advice when they needed it.

The provider also tested artificial intelligence to help managers complete weekly audits and meeting records more efficiently. Leaders recognised the information still needed to be checked for accuracy. This helped reduce administrative pressure while maintaining oversight and supporting managers to focus on quality, staff support and people’s care.

One staff member described the provider as a “forward thinking company.” The evidence showed the provider used learning, reflective practice, technology and innovation to improve systems, strengthen staff support and promote safer, more consistent care for people.