Stillcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager carried out initial assessments before people’s care began to ensure they could deliver care safely and effectively. They also reviewed the home environment and checked people’s medicines needs.

The registered manager updated risk assessments as people’s needs changed and reviewed care plans regularly with the involvement of people, their relatives and care workers.

The provider worked with the ICB [integrated care board] and local authority to review care packages regularly. They made changes such as increased hours when clinical needs changed. This ensured people were getting the support they needed.

Staff read care plans and risk assessments before starting work and after updates. They checked personal history, needs, and risks and related plans to real-life situations. This was effective in enabling staff to support people appropriately.

A relative told us, “[Care workers] speak and listen to [the person’s] needs which helps to ensure the correct support is provided.” This showed that people’s needs were instrumental to the support offered.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Where required, staff completed specialist training to meet people’s needs. This included supporting people with autism, a learning disability and epilepsy.

A relative told us, “[Person] has complex needs and [their] regular carers know what to do in case of any emergency.”

A care worker told us, “Sometimes we can eliminate the trigger. I understand that behaviour that challenges is a communication of an unmet need.” This showed understanding of good practice in supporting people with communication needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure people received coordinated and safe care. They described regular interaction with external agencies, including GPs, community nurses, physiotherapists, district nurses, social workers, and Integrated Care Board (ICB) officials. A social worker told us, “The provider maintains regular communication, responding promptly to phone calls and emails.”

Staff gave examples of attending multidisciplinary meetings and providing feedback from a care worker’s perspective. When new care needs arose, the registered manager arranged immediate training, sometimes delivered by external specialists.

Staff also reported clear internal communication through meetings, calls, and group messaging, which supported teamwork and continuity of care. They highlighted a culture of togetherness and respect, which promoted effective collaboration within the service.

This demonstrated that the provider worked well with other teams and professionals to deliver person-centred care and respond promptly to changing needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff encouraged people’s independence and promoted choice in daily activities. They gave examples of allowing extra time for tasks so people could do as much as possible for themselves, offering choices about clothing, meals, and personal care, and involving people in decisions about their care. Staff promoted engagement in meaningful activities and adapted communication methods to meet individual needs.

While these practices helped people retain control and supported their wellbeing, there was limited evidence of structured health promotion beyond daily routines.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had effective systems to monitor and improve care outcomes. Managers carried out regular supervisions and spot checks and maintained ongoing contact with staff to check progress and address issues promptly.

Feedback was actively gathered from families and people using the service, and staff confirmed that managers provided constructive performance reviews. Feedback from a social worker confirmed high confidence in the provider from the local authority.

Following incidents or changes in needs, managers held debrief meetings, shared lessons learned, and updated care plans and risk assessments to prevent recurrence and improve care.

A staff member explained, “After an incident the registered manager held a meeting and explained how the procedure was from the time the incident was logged, gave us feedback and went over the lessons that were learnt from the incident. The risk assessment and care plan were updated.”

These processes demonstrated that the provider monitored care delivery, acted on findings, and implemented improvements to maintain positive and consistent outcomes that met both clinical standards and individual preferences.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

During the assessment we saw signed consent forms which confirmed people’s agreement with care plans. The registered manager also stated that people acknowledged any updates to these.

Staff consistently described obtaining verbal consent before providing care and checking capacity in line with the Mental Capacity Act. A staff member told us, “I always get consent before starting to care, knock before entering rooms and provide physical barriers.” Another added, “I always first check for capacity and I follow the Mental Capacity Act and I offer choices.”

These practices demonstrated that staff understood and applied consent principles in daily care.