Som Care Ltd Also known as Som Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider and care staff team all knew the shared organisational values and were open in sharing these with people using the service, relatives and stakeholders.
 

Privacy was upheld in the way people’s information was handled and who this information could be shared with, consent to share information with external professionals was obtained.

 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider was knowledgeable and skilled at effectively managing the service. They were open and transparent and did not hesitate to share, on a need-to-know basis, information about the service performance. They were pro-active in seeking people’s views through regular personal contact and using written surveys. Care staff told us that they felt that they were working for a caring and supportive organisation and the values that were expressed demonstrated this was the organisational culture.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider told us they promoted communication and did not prohibit anyone from sharing their opinion about the service, whether positive or negative. and showed us the ways that they did this. Everyone who gave us feedback about the service, whether people using the service, their relatives, staff and a stakeholder believed they could raise what they wished to and share their views. People believed that action was taken when required to address their wishes and needs.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The feedback that we received from care staff was highly positive and reflected their belief that Som Care was an inclusive organisation. Their views reflected a belief that they felt valued and supported by the provider as individuals and to develop their professional skills.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

As a part of the providers ongoing review of the quality, they examined accidents, incidents and other events each month and recorded their findings and actions. This could occur sooner if any significant event occurred and if people’s care and support needs required a review.

There were clear lines of accountability and people working for the service demonstrated in their feedback that they knew who to report to, not just in terms of arising concerns but day to day.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

We were provided with examples of how the provider shared information and raised day to day events and worked in partnership with other partner agencies. For example, addressing a person’s declining mobility and supporting the person to move to a different home that was more suitable for their mobility needs. Another example was supporting someone to secure adaptations to their home and arising healthcare needs and changes to a person’s care following a hospital admission. This demonstrated a pro-active approach to identifying change in need and supporting improvements for people.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider told us that “One of our main successes has been maintaining up-to-date and individualised person-centred care plans for each of our service users. These care plans are regularly reviewed in partnership with the service user and their family, ensuring that their preferences, cultural background, and religious needs are respected. For example, for service users who are Somali-speaking, we have been able to match them with Somali-speaking carers who understand their cultural and religious needs, which has strengthened trust and improved communication. We have also achieved ISO 9001 certification, reflecting our commitment to quality management and continuous improvement.”

Feedback we received, the policies and procedures we were shown and care and oversight documents we reviewed demonstrated an ethos of continuous learning and improvement.

We were provided with the record of complaints that the service had received since registration. There had been a small number, and all of these were about issues surrounding repairs and other household improvements. These were not the responsibility of the provider, but their action showed that they were able to support people to raise these and seek improvements from their landlords.