Sterling Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

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.

People were supported by a staff team that reviewed events and incidents to identify learning and reduce the likelihood of them happening again. We saw evidence that the registered manager routinely reviewed incidents with both staff and the individuals involved, and ensured any learning was shared with the wider staff team.

One example involved a person who had fallen and sustained an injury. The lessons learned documentation showed that the review covered not only staff actions, but also a discussion with the person and an assessment of their environment. This helped identify practical changes to reduce future risk.

During our assessment, we found the service had effective systems to support safety and continuity of care, particularly when people moved between different services. Responsibility for planning safe transitions was shared between the person, their relatives, and the service. Relatives told us that when people needed support, staff liaised with them to ensure any transition was managed safely and appropriately.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them and were confident they could raise any concerns. Everyone we spoke with knew the registered manager and described them as approachable.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their role in safeguarding people from harm. They told us they received regular training and were clear about the actions they would take if they suspected abuse.

Records we viewed confirmed staff completed safeguarding training regularly. When safeguarding concerns were reported, the registered manager took appropriate action by notifying the local safeguarding team and CQC, carrying out investigations, and implementing measures to ensure people remained safe.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and regularly reviewed, and measures were in place to reduce these risks. Where required, people had access to specialist equipment to support their needs, such as moving and handling equipment.

People’s care records contained clear, detailed guidance for staff on their individual needs and how to meet them safely. People we spoke with told us staff knew them well and communicated effectively with them and their relatives.

People also told us staff were careful with the security of their homes. Staff followed the guidance in care plans, including using key safes appropriately and ensuring doors were locked when people had requested this as part of their care arrangements.

Staff told us they could access people’s records easily to keep up to date with any changes in their needs. They also confirmed they received training in key areas such as moving and handling, skin care, health and safety, and nutrition, ensuring they had the skills and knowledge to support people

Before people began receiving care, an initial assessment was completed to establish their needs, the suitability of their home environment, and any equipment required to support them safely. As noted above, this included consideration of home security arrangements, such as the use of key safes.

Assessments also clearly documented who was responsible for the maintenance and servicing of any equipment used by people. This ensured there was no ambiguity about who should monitor equipment safety and arrange any necessary repairs or servicing.

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.

People told us they were happy with how their calls were managed. Regular staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of the call. People said they were supported by a small group of carers and usually knew who would be visiting them. In one person’s care plan, we saw staff used a whiteboard to remind the person of the time of their next call and who would be attending. People told us they got on well with the staff who supported them and, on occasions where they had requested a change of staff member, this had been arranged promptly.

Staff told us they worked well together as a team and were willing to cover staffing shortfalls when needed. They also told us the registered manager undertook care calls when required. We reviewed records that showed how calls were organised and managed to ensure continuity and reliability for people using the service.

The recruitment records we reviewed varied in the quality of information recorded and the action plans in place. Some files lacked meaningful risk assessments. We discussed this with the registered manager, who explained that several of the records we viewed had been completed before their appointment. They told us they had since strengthened recruitment processes to ensure people were supported by safe and suitable staff, and that new staff were closely monitored throughout their probationary period. The registered manager provided evidence demonstrating improvements, including completed references, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, and follow-up risk assessments where required. Records also showed that staff supervisions were taking place regularly and in line with agreed actions when staff were first employed.

People told us that staff worked in a manner that minimised the risk of infection transmission during home visits. Staff wore the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance.

Although cleaning is not a regulated activity, staff also carried out domestic cleaning tasks for some people in addition to delivering personal care. People and their relatives told us that staff followed safe and hygienic cleaning practices.

People and their relatives told us that staff supported them with their medicines in line with the information recorded in their care plans and according to their individual needs. Some people managed their medicines independently, while others received support from family members. Where required, staff either prompted people to take their medicines or administered them on their behalf.

The registered manager told us that information about people’s medicines was regularly reviewed and discussed with people and their relatives. We saw evidence of this in people’s care records. This ensured medicines were administered safely and promoted people’s independence wherever possible.

Staff received training in the safe administration of medicines and completed regular refresher training. Spot checks and competency assessments were carried out by the deputy manager and registered manager to ensure staff maintained safe practice.

Any medicines errors were reportedand action taken. The registered manager encouraged an open and transparent culture so that staff felt able to report mistakes. This supported learning and reduced the risk of errors reoccurring.