Sentricare Birmingham

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care and need for consent. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulation.

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.

At the last inspection we found the provider did not ensure people received person-centred care. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them prior to them moving into the home to ensure these could be met safely. People and their relatives where appropriate had been involved in planning their care.

People’s care records were person centred. An assessment of people’s needs included communication, health, emotional and mobility. People had check-ups with health and social care professionals to support them to achieve positive outcomes.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs and told us they were kept up to date about any changes. Care plans were updated to reflect any changes in people’s needs or preferences.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to help determine the most appropriate care and treatment people required.

People’s dietary needs and preferences were recorded in their care plan and staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary needs. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink so they would remain well. Where staff had any concerns people may need additional nutritional support, this was referred to their GP.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People’s assessments and needs were shared with professionals when they moved between services.

Staff described working together to build respectful, supportive relationships with the people they cared for. They reported having access to personal histories, preferences and goals, which enabled them to deliver truly personalised care. One member “of staff told us, “We work well with other professionals, such as district nurses and GP’s”

They said they felt appreciated and well supported by both colleagues and managers. Staff were positive about the flow of information across their teams and told us this helped them to give safe, consistent care to people.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider ensured relevant referrals were made when there may be underlying health issues that needed additional support.

People told us when they had any concerns about their health, staff helped them to see their GPs and other health and social care professionals. One relative told us, “Any concerns and the carers would inform us and GP or District Nurses”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans were regularly reviewed however there was a lack of meaningful involvement of people using the service or their relatives in improving outcomes.

At the last inspection, we found the provider did not always ensure people consented to their care and treatment. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When people lack mental capacity to make specific decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

We found mental capacity assessment were completed in line with the code of practice of the MCA. We found the registered manager and provider were aware of the code of practice and how to support staff to uphold people’s human rights under the MCA.

Staff understood the principles of gaining valid consent and how it applied in day-to-day practice. They told us gaining consent from people before providing care and support was embedded within their working practices.