Soplar Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe and effective staffing
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service had been operational since February 2023. The registered manager told us to date there had not been any significant accidents or incidents, safeguarding allegations or complaints received. Records we looked at confirmed this. The service had a policy for staff to follow should things go wrong, and we saw there was an incident form template to use should staff need to. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of how to respond to any such incident.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People and their relative felt they received a safe service. A person and their relative told us they felt listened to and able to raise concerns or complaints. They were aware of who they could contact if they needed to raise any concerns.

At the time of this assessment, the provider had only taken on privately funded people, already living in their own homes. People's care plans had not required the provider to work with other health and social care providers with a transition from another care setting or provider. The provider carried out an assessment of people’s needs before they began to use the service. This meant they were able to plan any resources such as staff rotas and visit plans.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Relatives said their family member’s care was safe and staff met their needs. Risks associated to a person’s health and wellbeing were identified and risk management plans were developed. The registered manager explained they worked with the person and their family to ensure risk management plans did not restrict the person’s rights but reduced risks. Staff completed training to understand how to provide care in a safe way. This included how to support people if they had mobility support needs and how to use appropriate specialist equipment.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The registered manager told us they had 1 person using the service, and this meant it was easy to monitor staff punctuality. They added if the service grew, they had plans to introduce a system of electronic monitoring to check staff punctuality and that staff stayed for the full amount of time.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were carried out. These provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

At the time of our assessment, none of the people using the service required support with medicines, and records indicated no concerns in this area.

Staff told us they had received the appropriate training and were confident in administering medicines to people, when required. The provider had effective medicines management systems in place. For example, staff had received training in medicines administration and there were relevant up to date policies in place.