Sihara Care

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

The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. People received personalised care and support that met their needs. Care plans included clear details about people’s individual support needs. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes. Information was accessible and people's views were listened to and acted on. Records were updated to help ensure they reflected people’s changing needs. Complaints were managed appropriately. People’s equality and diversity needs were respected and met.

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.

People’s needs were met in a personalised way. People and relatives spoke positively about the person-centred nature of their care and support. A person said, “The carer I have is excellent. I could not fault [them]. [They] are so good. [They] seem to know what I need before I do myself. I would give [them] 11 out of 10.”

Staff knew the people they were caring for and treated them as individuals. Staff were knowledgeable about what people liked and what their preferences were and how best to meet them. People had different communication needs and staff tailored communication methods to each individual as appropriate.

People and relatives told us there was continuity of care. People had an opportunity to get to know care staff that supported them.

We did not receive feedback from staff about this aspect of the service.

We did not receive feedback from external partners about this aspect of the service.

The provider's processes included liaising with other professionals where appropriate and providing continuity of care.

People and relatives told us they had the information they needed. They knew who the manager was, who to contact if needed. A relative said, “I have never had to complain but if I spoke to them [management] about anything they get it sorted.” Another relative told us, “I have no problems with the office, I find them approachable.”

The manager advised that they held meetings with people and relatives where they were able to review people’s care and provide necessary information.

Systems were in place to hold confidential information and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR). Service records were kept locked away or password protected on electronic devices. This helped to ensure people’s private and sensitive information was only shared with authorised persons.

Staff took the time to communicate with people. The majority of relatives we spoke with told us carers understood people’s needs and were able to effectively communicate with people. A relative said. “The carers do a good job and I would give them 9/10. My [family member’s] are hard of hearing and don’t speak English. However, the care agency have been able to provide people that speak the lingo.”

Staff and the manager told us they communicated with people and spoke with relatives to obtain feedback. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to help ensure people received effective care and support.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure.

The majority of people told us they had developed good relationships with care staff. A person said, “I get on very well with my carers. I am able to chat with my carers.” People and relatives told us staff could access health care support for people when needed.

We did not receive feedback from staff regarding this aspect of the service.

We did not receive feedback from external partners about this aspect of the service.

A system was in place to support people to access health care providers. Information was readily available to people, relatives and staff as required.

The majority of people and relatives were complimentary about the agency. A relative said, “I’m surprised things have gone so well. I would give the carers 9/10.” The majority of feedback indicated that communication between people, relatives, staff and management was positive. Management encouraged feedback. People's cultural and religious needs were met. For example, people’s cultural diets were respected and supported. Some people’s cultural wishes such as not wearing shoes in their homes, care staff respected this and wore shoe covers.

Staff were complimentary about working at the agency and said they felt valued by their colleagues and management. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were aware of the importance of treating people equally regardless of their background or lifestyle. Staff asked people and relatives how they wanted to be supported. Relatives told us staff listened and valued people’s individuality and preferences.

Procedures regarding equality and diversity were in place. Staff had completed training to understood how to meet people's diverse needs. Where appropriate, care planning documents included information about people’s religious and cultural needs. Management carried out monitoring checks of the quality of the service provided through telephone calls.

At the time of the assessment, the service did not provide end of life care to people.

The manager confirmed that at the time of the assessment no one was being supported with end of life care or in receipt of palliative care.

An end of life policy was in place.