Sterling Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

Throughout the assessment, we were provided with evidence demonstrating that the registered manager and their team worked to deliver person‑centred care. People and relatives, we spoke with told us that the care provided was led by the individual’s own needs and preferences. Staff we spoke with were passionate about supporting people in ways that respected their choices. Records we reviewed showed that people, and their relatives where appropriate, had been actively involved in the development and ongoing review of their care plans.

Although this was a small service, people supported had a wide range of needs. This included personal care, support with nutrition and medicines, and for some individuals, support to access their local community. People’s care had been tailored to their individual requirements, and where needed, the registered manager had worked closely with relatives and healthcare professionals to ensure positive outcomes in relation to both physical and mental health needs.

We saw one example where the registered manager had raised concerns about the lack of ongoing support from external health professionals for a person whose mental health had deteriorated, which in turn was affecting aspects of their physical health. The registered manager continued to advocate for this individual to ensure they received the appropriate level of care.

People were provided with information about the service and their care in formats they could understand. Some individuals chose to have their relatives receive information as well as, or on behalf of, the person, and we saw this was accommodated and clearly documented. We received positive feedback from relatives about the quality of communication from the registered manager and the staff team.

People’s and relatives’ feedback about how care was delivered was considered important by the registered manager. We saw that people were encouraged to take part in telephone feedback calls and complete questionnaires. One relative, whose family member had been receiving care from the service for over three years, told us that communication had initially been “a little hit and miss.” However, the registered manager had since set up a WhatsApp group between staff, the person, and their relatives. This had proved to be very effective in improving two‑way communication and ensuring everyone remained informed and involved in the person’s care.

We saw evidence the registered manager had also responded to any complaints or concerns in line with their complaints policy; however, people and relatives told us they had little cause to complain about the service.

Staff had developed strong partnerships with relatives and were quick to recognise when people’s health declined. Several relatives gave examples of how staff responded promptly to ensure people received the support they needed when unwell. One relative told us that staff had recently called an ambulance for their family member after noticing during a care call that the person had become acutely unwell. Incident records we reviewed also demonstrated that staff acted appropriately and in a timely manner when people required urgent help.

People were supported to achieve good outcomes when experiencing the need to access services to support their health needs. Staff also acted on people’s behalf to ensure they experienced good outcomes in their interactions with external professionals. For example, one relative explained that when their family member’s mobility declined, it was Visiting Angels staff who contacted social services to request a timely assessment. As a result, the person received the mobility equipment they needed to support them safely and maintain their independence.

Where people wished, they were supported to make important decisions about their future life choices. We saw that some individuals had expressed a wish to discuss whether they wished to be resuscitated should the need arise. Their decisions were clearly documented, along with details of the people who were important to them and involved in these discussions.

The service did not have anyone receiving end‑of‑life care at the time of our assessment. However, the provider told us they would work closely with the person, their relatives, and relevant external health professionals to ensure care was delivered in line with the person’s wishes and preferences should end‑of‑life support be required.