Stillcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Feedback we received from staff showed that the provider maintained a fair, open and inclusive culture. The registered manager acted in approachable and supportive ways, working alongside staff and encouraged open communication across the service. Staff consistently felt safe to raise concerns, and they described a workplace built on openness, respect, teamwork and the absence of discrimination.

They also engaged regularly in meetings, received feedback, and stayed involved in organisational updates, demonstrating a shared sense of direction. Regarding this open culture a staff member told us, “I am confident to report any concerns without having any worries or fear.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff feedback confirmed that leaders acted with compassion, credibility and professionalism, and they brought the right skills and knowledge to support both staff and people receiving care effectively.

The registered manager worked alongside staff, offered coaching, and demonstrated a clear understanding of the human rights and needs of the people they supported.

Staff consistently reported that management was approachable, supportive and committed to their development, providing reliable guidance when complex situations arose. A staff member said the management “Regularly worked alongside me to offer coaching and check on my wellbeing.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns without fear and understood how to escalate issues. They described a positive culture where they could be honest about risks or mistakes and felt supported when reporting concerns. A staff member said they were “Confident to report any concerns without having any worries or fear.”

Relatives did not explicitly comment on whether they felt safe or confident to speak up. However, they told us they knew who to contact and that the registered manager responded when issues were raised.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had a policy which set out clear and comprehensive arrangements to promote equality, diversity and human rights across all aspects of care. An equality and diversity monitoring form reflected an organisation that understood its equality duties and valued diversity. It included a comprehensive set of demographic categories and explained that information was collected anonymously to support representation, fairness and compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

Staff feedback confirmed that these commitments were reflected in day‑to‑day practice. Staff told us they did not experience discrimination and described the service as inclusive, with 1 person stating they had “Not experienced any form of discrimination. [It is] very inclusive.” Staff also described a fair and open culture, characterised by mutual respect and equitable treatment among colleagues

Together, the documents and staff feedback showed that the provider not only demonstrated policy intent around equality and diversity but also fostered a workplace culture in which people from diverse backgrounds felt respected, valued and able to contribute openly.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had a clear leadership structure, including a Director, Registered Manager and Quality Review Manager, which supported accountability across the service. The registered manager used a structured quality assurance framework aligned to CQC quality statements, with regular audits of care logs, medicines, supervision and people’s care plan reviews. These audits identified areas for improvement and positive outcomes, including improved engagement and family satisfaction.

The provider acted on performance information through a complaints process that acknowledged concerns within 48 hours and completed investigations within 10 working days. Outcomes and actions were shared transparently with people and staff and discussed in management meetings to support learning. Staff were also required to report medicines errors, which the provider recorded through incident forms and reviewed within its lessons‑learned processes.

The provider maintained oversight, communicated consistently with commissioners, and ensured reliable staffing and documentation.

The provider communicated expectations around confidentiality, General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR] and correct reporting, supporting safe information handling. Overall, they demonstrated governance arrangements that monitored quality, responded to issues and supported sustainable, well‑led care.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider’s partnership working ensured care was coordinated and safe. The registered manager explained that they collaborated with a clinical lead when people required specialist care, ensuring appropriate oversight and supervision. They stated they would work with multidisciplinary teams and arrange specialist training before supporting people with higher clinical needs.

Staff interviews supported this. Several staff described working with external professionals, such as district nurses, physiotherapists and mental health teams, which showed that partnership working already formed part of routine practice.

The provider also shared learning from complaints and incidents within the team and with families to support transparency and improvement.

Overall, the provider demonstrated effective partnerships that supported coordinated care and continuous learning.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider used audits, supervision and reviews of care logs and medicines to identify areas for development and acted on findings to enhance people’s outcomes. They reviewed complaints and incidents through structured processes, sharing learning with people, families and staff to support service‑wide improvement.

Staff interviews supported this, with staff describing incident debriefs, reflective learning and updates to care plans and risk assessments following events. They also described being retrained when necessary and receiving regular feedback through spot checks and supervision that strengthened their practice.

Although the provider did not give examples of formal innovation or research, their audit cycle, reflective processes and responsive training approach demonstrated a commitment to improving quality and achieving better experiences and outcomes for people.