Som Care Ltd Also known as Som Care

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

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care records showed assessments were undertaken prior to using the service and care plans, including risk assessments, were compiled and reviewed at regular intervals.

Care plans were detailed and referred to relevant areas dependent upon people’s current care and support needs. For example, care plans included keeping a check on skin integrity (for those who may be at risk of pressure ulcers developing), medicines, mobility and moving and handling. Care records also included details of other health and care professionals involved with people’s continuing care.

The care plans were written in the first person, putting each person at the centre of the information about their care and support needs.

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 service used an online care note recording system where at each visit care staff could log on and add notes about the care they had provided at each visit. We were shown the notes from December 2025. The notes were detailed and provided suitable information about what support was provided. Using this system also assisted in monitoring the times that visits were made.

If people required assistance to prepare and eat meals this was made available. No-one currently using the service required help to eat or drink although guidelines were included in care plans. When anyone needed help to prepare meals this was included in their care plan. We viewed a care plan for a person who needed to use adapted cutlery to eat their meal and clear guidance was provided to care staff.

The provider 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.

We were provided with evidence from the provider of one occasion where it was believed a person’s care and support could best be catered for using a different care service. The provider had facilitated this move in co-ordination with the person and commissioning authority.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing 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 care plans were written in the first person, putting each person at the centre of the information about their care and support needs.

The provider showed us evidence of partnership working with other health and care agencies. We found that communication with these partner agencies took place. This demonstrated that the provider and care staff team took action to promote people’s physical and mental health care and support needs.

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.

Peoples care and support needs were regularly monitored which we saw evidence of in care plans, risk assessments and medication records. These all showed, along with other areas of day-to-day oversight, that people were not forgotten. Care staff were clear in their feedback to us that they would always raise any emerging issues about changes to people’s care and support needs. They also considered if current care was effective and if there was any improvement that could be made. This was through the review processes and by communicating with people and their families.

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

We were told, and shown evidence, that no-one currently using the service was subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) or power of attorney. Everyone had capacity to make decisions for themselves and to consent to their care, or not, as they so choose. The provider’s policy and guidance for staff were detailed and in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Everyone using the service were able to provide informed consent. The provider had policies and procedures in place to respond when people may need to have their capacity assessed.