Solsken Limited

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had made a number of improvements since our last inspection to improve the quality and safety of the service. • The service had enough staff to care for clients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect clients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to clients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of clients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. • Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to clients, families and carers. • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of clients individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it. • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of clients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with clients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually. • We found the provider was embedding a supervision process that sought to meet the needs of the staff as a priority. The supervision process focused on points of contact for staff which included clinical and managerial supervision but also included more focused and individualised sessions in terms of probation meetings, welfare checks, spot checks, themed supervisions, team meetings and appraisals. • We found the providers use of information technology in the community was maintaining good quality records and managing effective communication between staff and managers. There was good governance, audit and oversight of this.

Summary of findings

Our judgements about each of the main services

Service Rating Summary of each main service Community Good ––– Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as health good. See the overall summary for details. services for adults

Summary of findings

Contents

Summary of this inspection Page Background to Solsken Limited 5 Information about Solsken Limited 5

Our findings from this inspection Overview of ratings 7 Our findings by main service 8

Summary of this inspection

Background to Solsken Limited The service is operated by Solsken Limited. It is based in Sheffield, South Yorkshire but operates nationally. The service provides care to individuals with complex care needs in their own homes. Solsken Limited are commissioned to provide care under the NHS continuing healthcare budget. At the time of our inspection the service provided care to six clients.

The service has a registered manager in post and the service registered in December 2019, although it had been registered previously at a different location. The service is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury • Personal Care We have inspected Solsken Limited two times since it registered at this location. This service was placed in special measures in July 2021 and at our last inspection in February 2022 the service remained in special measures and we issued eight requirement notices in relation to the following breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014:

• Regulation 12 safe care and treatment

• Regulation 16 receiving and acting on complaints

• Regulation 17 good governance

• Regulation 18 staffing.

How we carried out this inspection During the inspection visit, the inspection team:

• visited the registered office in Sheffield; • undertook one home visit to a person using the service; • spoke with two clients who were using the service; • spoke with three carers or family members of clients; • spoke with the managing director; • spoke with five other senior staff; including the registered manager, clinical lead, nurse and two operational managers responsible for client packages and recruitment and compliance; • received feedback from four senior health care assistants and ten health care assistants, either remotely or face to face; • looked at all six care and treatment records; • received feedback from five commissioners about their experience of the provider; • looked at a range of policies, procedures and other documents relating to the running of the service. The inspection was carried out by two CQC inspectors, a specialist professional advisor and an expert by experience and overseen by head of hospital inspection.

Summary of this inspection You can find information about how we carry out our inspections on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/what-we-do/ how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection.

Areas for improvement Action the service MUST take is necessary to comply with its legal obligations. Action a service SHOULD take is because it was not doing something required by a regulation but it would be disproportionate to find a breach of the regulation overall, to prevent it failing to comply with legal requirements in future, or to improve services.

Action the service SHOULD take to improve:

• The service should ensure that the risk register includes dates of when risks are reviewed, when the initial risk rating was recorded and dates for when mitigating actions are to be in place. This would show how long the risk has been present, allow the service to assess whether controls in place are effective and show how often these are reviewed. • The service should continue to ensure that revised governance systems and ways of working are embedded in the longer term. • The service should consider adding a section to the incident reporting tracker to show if a duty of candour letter is sent following an incident. • The service should consider adding a separate signatory box to client contingency plans for relatives/carers to sign in addition to clients.

Our findings

Overview of ratings Our ratings for this location are: Saf