Sorelle Support

Updated 4 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 6 March 2018, it was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service, we therefore needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office to assist with the inspection.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. During the inspection we spent time at the services’ office and visited two people in their own homes with their agreement.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service which included previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law. We contacted the local authority safeguarding team who had no concerns with the service. We also requested feedback from commissioners and a community professional, however, we did not receive any feedback from them.

We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR).This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with two people who use the service and one relative of a person who uses the service. We received feedback from another relative following the inspection. We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager, the support co-ordinator and two support staff. A further five staff members provided written feedback. We looked at records relating to the management of the service including five people’s support plans and associated records. We checked records related to managing medicines and reviewed five staff files including the recruitment records for the most recently recruited staff. We also reviewed staff training records, the compliments/complaints log and accident/incident records.

Updated 4 April 2018

This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 6 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure someone would be in the office to assist us.

Sorelle Support Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults, younger adults, people living with dementia and people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Not everyone using Sorelle Support receives the regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do receive the regulated activity ‘personal care’, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care and support to five people.

The service had a registered manager as required. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was present and assisted us during the inspection.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good in all domains. At this inspection we found the service remained Good in all domains.

People received support that was safe. Staff were trained to safeguard and protect people. They reported concerns promptly and when necessary and the registered manager took appropriate action. People supported with medicines received them safely and when they were required. Risks to people were assessed and actions taken to minimise risks without restricting their freedom. A robust recruitment procedure was followed to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. Appropriate personal protective equipment was supplied and used to prevent the spread of infection.

People continued to receive effective support from staff who were well trained and had the necessary skills to fulfil their role. Staff were very well supported by the registered manager and the management team. Regular one to one meetings and appraisals provided time to seek advice, discuss and review their work. They had opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge as well as gain relevant qualifications. People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and adequate hydration when this was part of their support plan. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and advice was sought from healthcare professionals when necessary. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service remained caring. Staff were kind and patient and people had formed trusting relationships with them. People’s privacy and dignity were protected, they and their relatives told us staff treated them with respect. People and when appropriate relatives were fully involved in making decisions about their support. Staff encouraged people to maintain and increase their independence.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Staff knew people very well and paid particular attention to finding out about their interests and personal preferences. This enabled support to be focused to achieve people’s desired outcomes. Individual support plans were person-centred, they considered the diverse needs of each person, taking into account any protected characteristics. The service provided flexible support embracing people’s individual wishes. People knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint, they felt confident they would be listened to if concerns were raised. The service was working to the accessible information standard.

The service was well-led, with strong leadership from the registered manager and the management team. Records were relevant, complete and reviewed regularly to reflect current information. The registered manager promoted an open, empowering, person centred culture. The values of the service were embedded in the way staff worked with people. Feedback was sought and used to monitor the quality of the service. Audits were conducted and used to make improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.