- Community healthcare service
Sister Kate Ltd
Assessment report published 1 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This assessment took place on 9 September 2026. This is the first assessment following registration in December 2022. Sister Kate Ltd is an independent healthcare service, which provides ear examinations and microsuction for the removal of ear wax build up to adults and children aged 6 years and above. The service is provided from a treatment room within a serviced building in Oswestry, as well as from satellite sites in Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth and Wem. Home visits are also bookable at an additional cost.
The service offers both private and NHS services. The provider has a contract with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) to provide ear wax removal services for people registered at a local GP practice. The provider also has an arrangement in place to provide services to young people living at a local specialist college, and a local manufacturer.
Sister Kate Ltd is operated by a registered nurse, who is both the nominated individual and registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. For the purposes of this report, they will be referred to as the provider. The service employs an appropriately trained ear care practitioner 2 days a week. For the purposes of the report, when referring to both the registered manager and ear care practitioner, they will be referred to as the ‘staff’.
Safe: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. People were assessed at the beginning of each session and any potential risks were identified. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained. However, we identified shortfalls in the provider’s systems for identifying and mitigating any potential risks. The provider had not completed relevant risk assessments or assured themselves that the landlord had carried out and acted upon the required health and safety assessments for the building and equipment. Although there were enough staff, the provider was unable to demonstrate staff were appropriately trained or received supervision and appraisals. Safe recruitment procedures were not followed, or staff vaccinations maintained in line with current guidance. These findings reflected weaknesses in systems and processes, however no evidence of actual patient harm was identified during this assessment.
Effective: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with people’s GPs for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. People were given information to enable them to give informed consent to their care.
Caring: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences.
Responsive: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access, and there was flexibility around appointments. The provider visited a local specialist college to deliver the service as the young people were more relaxed when seen in a familiar environment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Well-led: The service had a positive culture, and staff were committed to providing safe care. The leader of the service was visible, knowledgeable and supportive, and staff felt supported to give feedback. The provider worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care. However, we found that the provider did not have effective governance systems in place to ensure consistent oversight of safety, quality and performance. We identified issues with risk assessments, recruitment documentation including vaccination status, documentation of formal clinical supervision, evidence of training and qualifications, as set out under the Safe key question of this report.
We identified a breach of Regulation 12, Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to submit an action plan within 28 days to address the concerns identified during this assessment.
People's experience of this service
As part of our Give Feedback on Care service, we received feedback from 3 people. Comments were all positive and demonstrated people’s confidence in the expertise of staff and described the service as ‘outstanding’ delivered with exceptional care and professionalism. People told us they would recommend the service to others.
Unverified online reviews obtained by the provider demonstrated a high level of people’s satisfaction with the service.