Stillcare Ltd

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

Responsive – 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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided in partnership with people how to respond to relevant changes in their needs.

Evidence from staff and relatives confirmed that the delivery of care was consistently person centred, respectful and tailored to what mattered to individuals.

Staff read care plans routinely, offered choices, sought consent and adapted support according to each person’s preferences. A staff member said, “I give [the person] time to explain how [they] want to be supported,” showing a personalised and respectful approach. Staff promoted people’s independence and dignity by knocking before entering, using appropriate physical barriers, and communicating calmly.

Although everyday care was highly individualised, some sections of written care plans were generic and did not fully capture people’s preferences or voice. Several sections relied heavily on standardised text. This can make plans feel impersonal and may not reflect how the person actually experiences support. Although personal profiles were often strong, this information was not consistently reflected in other sections of the care plan.

We found that some wording within a care plan relating to support for a child around privacy and personal safety was not age appropriate, and the provider should ensure staff have clear guidance and training so documentation in this area aligns with safeguarding expectations and reflects staff’s proper role.

We discussed this with the registered manager and they assured us that they would strengthen the personalisation, coherence and level of detail in written care plans to ensure the documentation more accurately reflects the high-quality care already being delivered to support consistency for all staff.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined‑up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager showed a strong understanding of the health, social and cultural needs of the people they supported. They used pre‑assessments to identify people’s preferences, including cultural requirements, and matched staff accordingly to ensure personalised and appropriate care.

They supported continuity by coordinating rotas around where staff lived so the same familiar workers attended consistently and arrived on time. The registered manager worked openly with relatives, sharing outcomes of concerns and discussing required actions in management meetings, which helped maintain a joined-up approach to people’s care and ensured issues did not happen again.

They also accessed a clinical lead when needed and involved families in reviews, contributing to coordinated and person-centred oversight of people’s support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff said they read and acknowledged updated care plans before each shift through the provider’s app, ensuring they used current information when supporting people.

Staff also said changes were clearly communicated. A care worker said of changes, “[they’re] documented and communicated to us clearly.”

Staff adapted explanations to people’s needs when giving support, so the people understood what was requested or about to happen. We saw evidence that staff completed General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR] and Information Governance modules, supporting safe, lawful information handling.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

A relative told us, “The registered manager was good with communication and always reachable.” Another told us, “Feedback is requested periodically and there is evidence where it is acted on.”

Relatives also said staff “Speak and listen to [the person’s] needs,” demonstrating that people’s views were heard and acted on.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff explained that essential information for escalation was easy to obtain, with one noting that “All emergency numbers are easily accessible.”

The provider identified and reduced barriers by ensuring staff understood people’s individual communication and support needs and adapted their approach accordingly. A member of staff told us how they adjusted the pace of care to meet individual needs, “I give [the person] time to explain how [they] want to be supported.”

When needs changed, the registered manager updated documentation promptly and shared this with staff so adjustments could be implemented consistently. A relative confirmed that the provider responded quickly and adapted care when required and described the agency as “always responsive.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider demonstrated a person-centred approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. Preassessment processes were described as capturing people’s cultural, religious and personal preferences, helping staff understand individual identity and tailor care accordingly.

The provider made personalised and culturally responsive adjustments. All staff completed equality, diversity and human rights training, supporting a baseline understanding of inclusive practice. The staff team were able to meet diverse needs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans described people’s broad physical, emotional, social, and spiritual needs and outlined general approaches staff should use to maintain comfort, dignity, and safety. They also identified a range of risks and set out intended outcomes and support measures. However, these care plans did not show that future planning discussions, including advance care planning, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation [DNACPR] decisions, or preferences for future care, had actually taken place or were documented. The care plans stated that such planning was important but did not record any completed decisions, personalised future wishes, or evidence of how the people, their relatives, or representatives had been involved.

The care plans did not show how staff assessed people’s capacity to participate in decision making, nor did they demonstrate how preferences were reviewed or shared with relevant professionals.

As a result, the evidence showed that people were not always supported to plan for important life changes in line with expectations.