Sambhana Care Ltd

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.
 

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
People’s needs had been reassessed following the last inspection to ensure care delivered reflected their current needs. The registered manager had introduced a structured reassessment schedule, and supervising staff had completed updated assessments for the majority of people using the service. These assessments were more detailed and captured people’s preferences, routines, communication needs and levels of independence.
Care plans had been rewritten in line with these assessments. They now provided clearer step-by-step guidance for staff, including information about mobility support, nutritional requirements, preferred methods of communication and any risks identified.
Staff told us the revised care plans were easier to follow and gave them greater confidence in meeting people’s needs safely and consistently.

The registered manager 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.
Staff had received updated training that was relevant to their roles and aligned with current best practice. This included refresher training in areas such as moving and handling, nutrition and hydration, and dementia awareness. New staff also completed an expanded induction programme that incorporated the Care Certificate standards.
The registered manager had begun cross-checking training content with recognised national guidelines to ensure it reflected evidence-based approaches. Care plans showed that staff were applying this learning in areas such as pressure area care, falls prevention and supporting people with long-term conditions.
People told us staff seemed more knowledgeable and better prepared during visits. One person said staff “explain what they’re doing now and check things properly,” which reflected the improved consistency of care.

The registered manager worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
Staff worked effectively across teams and with external professionals to support people. Records showed that information from reassessments, risk reviews and GP or community nursing input was being shared appropriately with all relevant staff.
Where people moved between services—such as when returning home from a hospital stay—staff ensured essential information was relayed promptly so people did not need to repeat their story. We saw examples of staff consulting with hospital discharge teams, district nurses and occupational therapists to ensure equipment was in place and care arrangements had been updated before care restarted.
Staff told us communication between office and care teams had improved significantly, with a new daily handover process helping ensure consistency of support.

The registered manager 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.
Staff understood people’s day-to-day health needs and when concerns needed to be escalated. Records demonstrated staff had contacted people’s GP's, district nurses or family members promptly when changes were noted, including concerns about mobility, skin integrity, appetite, or mood. This helped ensure people received timely support and reduced the risk of deterioration.
People told us staff supported them well with hydration, nutrition and general well being. However, some feedback indicated that staff, particularly those new to the UK, were unfamiliar with certain local foods or how to prepare them to people’s preferences. This had occasionally resulted in meals being offered that people did not eat.
We fed this back to the nominated individual and registered manager. They told us this had already been identified, and plans were underway to introduce a practical workshop for overseas staff to learn about common local dishes, preparation techniques, and culturally appropriate drinks and snacks. This demonstrated a proactive approach to improving people’s experience of care.

The registered manager 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.
Staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to ensure outcomes were positive and continually improving. Daily visit logs, communication books and electronic monitoring records showed staff were noting people’s well being, any changes in their condition, and the support provided.
A person’s relative told us, “I think they are pretty good. They now do the checking in electronically and I can follow it on-line. I can see everything, including what they have done.”
The registered manager had introduced audits of care plans, visit notes and risk assessments to ensure outcomes aligned with people’s goals and clinical expectations. Where improvements were identified—such as updating mobility plans following therapy input or providing additional hydration prompts—these were acted upon and documented.
People and relatives told us they felt staff were more attentive and that care was becoming more consistent over time. Telling us, “They are always cheerful and happy and if late, they apologise. If (loved one) had a bad back and were in pain, they listen to them and adapt the approach in order to do it in a different manner.”

The registered manager told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
Staff demonstrated an improved understanding of consent and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) since the last inspection. Staff we spoke with described how they sought people’s consent before providing care, and we observed examples of staff offering choices and explaining tasks clearly.
Where people were able to make their own decisions, this was documented appropriately. For individuals whose capacity had changed, capacity assessments had been completed or reviewed, and best interest discussions were recorded where necessary. This ensured decisions reflected people’s wishes and legal requirements.