Sternhill Paddock

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had effective processes in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed in a timely and holistic way. Assessments were completed using a multidisciplinary approach, enabling staff to build a well‑rounded understanding of each person’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. One person received a joint assessment from the community learning disability team and mental health professionals to better understand the impact of anxiety on their daily life. This enabled staff to tailor support strategies, including gradual exposure and emotional regulation techniques, which the person told us had helped them feel “more in control” and confident in trying new activities and supported them to access the community which had been a barrier to them previously.

People received care and treatment that was consistently informed by national guidance and evidence‑based best practice. Staff demonstrated a solid understanding of the clinical and therapeutic approaches relevant to the needs of the people they supported, and they applied this knowledge reliably in day‑to‑day practice. Staff used recognised tools to assess people’s physical and mental health needs, and these were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained accurate and responsive to any changes.

We saw examples of staff adapting their approach in response to evidence‑based recommendations. For example, a person with sensory processing needs had their environment adjusted in line with occupational therapy guidance, which had led to a noticeable reduction in distress and improved engagement in daily activities. Staff were able to explain the rationale behind these adjustments and how they monitored their effectiveness over time.

Collaborative working meant people’s long‑term goals, preferences and aspirations were consistently placed at the centre of decision‑making. Staff, teams and external professionals worked together with a level of coordination, communication and shared purpose that went above and beyond. One person had been supported to access an education placement that aligned with their long‑term goals for personal development and independence. This individual required routine and structure to feel secure and engage meaningfully in learning. Staff demonstrated an outstanding commitment to understanding these needs and worked proactively with the education facility to embed the person’s preferred structure into their daily timetable. This included planning lunchtime visits to their favourite food outlet and incorporating physical activities, such as swimming sessions, into their weekly routine to support structure, wellbeing and engagement.

The joint working between the service and the education provider was exemplary. Staff shared detailed, person‑centred information that enabled the education team to understand the person’s needs from the outset. This ensured the individual was able to access the full college experience immediately, rather than requiring a prolonged period of adjustment. We saw that this collaborative approach helped the person develop new skills, build confidence and begin forming meaningful relationships with peers.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that promoted independence, informed choice and improved long‑term outcomes. Staff understood people’s individual health needs and worked with them to develop healthier routines that were realistic, meaningful and aligned with their preferences.

One person, who had been significantly underweight, required support to explore foods that met their sensory preference for crunchy textures. Staff used a person‑centred approach to introduce new foods gradually, ensuring the individual felt safe, in control and able to express what they enjoyed. Through this supportive and consistent approach, the person began to try a wider range of foods that met their sensory needs, and over time they experienced a healthy increase in weight.

This progress had a positive impact on the person’s wider wellbeing. As their confidence around food grew, they felt able to join relatives in social activities and family gatherings where food was the main focus. Staff told us this had been an important milestone for the individual, as they now felt reassured that they could participate fully in these events and enjoy shared experiences that had previously felt overwhelming.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor people’s progress and ensure their care and support continued to meet their needs. Everyone living at the service had an allocated key worker who met with them weekly to review how they were feeling, reflect on recent progress and agree small, achievable aims and goals. These meetings were recorded clearly and showed that staff supported people to build confidence, develop new skills and work towards outcomes that were meaningful to them.

In addition to weekly key‑worker sessions, people had a more detailed review every four weeks. These reviews brought together information from daily records, professional input and the person’s own views to ensure support plans remained accurate and responsive. Where changes were identified, staff updated plans promptly and discussed any new strategies with the wider team to maintain consistency. The management team demonstrated a good standard of monitoring and improving outcomes. Regular reviews, consistent key‑worker involvement and a focus on achievable goals ensured people received support that remained person‑centred, effective and aligned with their ongoing development.

Staff understood people’s communication plans well and used their preferred methods consistently when seeking consent. Staff demonstrated a clear awareness of how each person expressed agreement, refusal or uncertainty, and they adapted their approach to ensure people were fully involved in decisions about their care.

Communication plans were detailed and person‑centred, outlining the gestures, signs, symbols or verbal cues each individual used. Staff were familiar with these plans and applied them reliably in day‑to‑day practice. Observations throughout the assessment showed staff checking in with people before offering support, explaining what they were doing and waiting for clear indications of consent before proceeding. This included using visual prompts, simple language, or giving people additional time to process information when needed.

The home had easy read documentation available for all interactions with people such as best interest decision and review meetings which ensured people were able to fully be involved in decision making.