You are here

Soma Healthcare (Central London) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

This inspection took place on the 5 and 6 July 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the people we needed to speak with would be available. This was their first inspection under this registration with the Care Quality Commission since it had been registered in April 2016. It had previously been registered at a different address and the provider was meeting all the regulations that we checked at the last inspection in February 2014.

Soma Healthcare (Central London) is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our visit the service was providing personal care and support to 24 people in the London Borough of Wandsworth. The majority of people using the service were funded by the local authority.

There was a manager in place at the time of our inspection who was in the process of applying to be the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse. Staff were confident that any concerns would be investigated and dealt with. All staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and had a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns.

The provider had a medicines policy in place where care workers were only allowed to prompt people’s medicines. Staff had completed basic training in medicines and knew what to do if they had any concerns.

People’s risks were managed and care plans contained appropriate risk assessments which were updated when people’s needs changed. Where necessary, guidance was in place to enable staff to support people safely.

The provider had a robust staff recruitment process and staff underwent the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service. People had regular care workers to ensure they received consistent levels of care.

A new training programme had just started to be implemented and positive comments were received by staff who had already taken part in some training sessions. Care workers received regular supervision and told us they felt supported and were happy with their input during supervision sessions

Care workers told us they reported any issues or concerns to the care team and we saw evidence of this in people’s care records. We also saw people were supported to maintain their health and well-being through access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, occupational therapists, district nurses and social services.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Care workers respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they carried out care tasks. The provider was aware of what to do and who to contact if they had concerns that people lacked capacity to make certain decisions.

People and their relatives told us care workers were kind and caring and knew how to provide the care and support they required. People told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. An initial assessment was completed from which care plans and risk assessments were developed. Care was personalised to meet people’s individual needs and preferences and was reviewed if there were any significant changes, with health and social care professionals being updated on people’s current conditions.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to make

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were in place to identify the areas of risk and to reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm. Guidance had been sought from health care professionals to support staff in their roles.

The provider took appropriate steps to ensure robust staff recruitment procedures were followed and there were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse and protect people from harm. Staff were confident any concerns brought up would be acted upon straight away.

People were prompted with their medicines and staff were aware of what to do if they had any concerns about people receiving their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was effective.

The provider understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff took the necessary action if they had concerns about people�s capacity.

A new training programme was in place whereby staff received accredited training to support them in their roles. Care workers received regular supervision to discuss important issues and provide support to meet people�s needs.

Staff were aware of people�s health and well-being and responded if their needs changed. People were supported to access health and social care professionals, such as GPs, district nurses and occupational therapists.

People were supported to have a balanced diet if this was required. People told us that care workers were aware of their preferences and offered them choices at mealtimes.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was caring.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Care workers were consistent, knew the people they worked with and treated them with respect and kindness.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support, in accordance with their wishes. Relatives and health and social care professionals, were informed about people�s health and well-being and also involved in decision making where appropriate.

Care workers promoted people�s independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records were discussed and designed to meet people�s individual needs and staff knew how people liked to be supported.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to make complaints and said they would feel comfortable raising any concerns with the office. The service gave people using the service and relatives the opportunity to give feedback about the care and treatment they received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was well-led.

There was visible leadership from the management team and they understood their responsibilities, which led to a positive environment within the staff team.

People using the service and their relatives told us that the service was well managed and had no concerns. Staff spoke highly of the support they received to carry out their responsibilities.

There were audits, meetings and quality monitoring systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify any concerns. Any concerns identified were followed up appropriately.