Sentricare Birmingham

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At the last inspection, we found the provider did not always treat people with dignity and respect. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Care records placed clear emphasis on dignity and emotional well‑being. For example, plans highlighted the need for respectful support and explicitly linked dignity to emotional well‑being and quality of life. This indicates that expectations around dignified care were embedded within the written guidance for staff. One person told us, “Privacy within the home is respected, in that they knock first don’t open anything without asking.” A relative told us, “Carers are friendly, respectful and polite in the way they treat [person]

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Staff took account of each person’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural background and protected characteristics.

People and their relatives told us staff were matched to people to support their individual cultural needs. For example, staff who shared people’s first language to support effective communication. One relative told us, “The carers speak Urdu and that’s [name of relative] first language”

Care records documented people’s social, cultural, religious and emotional needs. They also outlined what individuals could manage independently and where staff support was required. This supported personalised, strengths‑based care and helped promote independence wherever possible.

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

People who had the capacity to choose felt they had control over day-to-day choices. The provider and staff had built up good relationships with families, so they had a good understanding of what preferences people might like, even when they were unable to choose. Care planning set out people preferences in terms of where they wanted to receive care, where possible. One relative told us, “Care is delivered in a way that feels good for her as a person and an individual.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People and their relatives described mixed experiences of care, highlighting issues such as rushed visits, poor time‑keeping and variability in staff competence. These concerns suggested carers were not always responsive in the moment, particularly during short visits or when staff were unfamiliar with the person. Some family members felt they needed to closely monitor the support being provided. One relative told us, “I sometimes feel things could be missed if no one is keeping an eye on it.” Another relative told us, “I worry because of how rushed everything feels for [person].”

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

Staff felt well supported by leaders. One staff member said, “The manager is really good, I feel very well supported.”

The provider supported staff by making reasonable adjustments and offering flexible working arrangements that recognised caring responsibilities, pregnancy and religious festivities. Staff we spoke to confirmed this.

New staff received appropriate induction, supervision, training and support from experienced staff. Staff feedback indicated strong support and good accessibility from both management and office staff, with several staff highlighting the benefit of out of hours management availability. Staff reported feeling satisfied with their onboarding and training and described feeling confident that guidance and support were always available.