Archived: Sterling Homecare (Doncaster)

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Staff told us that whenever they helped people they ensured they discussed with people first what was going to happen. One person told us, 'The staff are always smart and polite."

Is the service responsive?

The provider had carried out assessments of people's needs, but these had not always been correctly completed. Not all care plans were regularly reviewed. There were arrangements in place for making complaints, however, the expectations of the complaints policy were not always met. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of law in relation to people's care and welfare

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was not planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding people who use the service.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed, staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment. People using the service told us they felt safe. One person told us: "They (staff) are lovely, I wish they could stay longer.'

Is the service effective?

People's needs were not always fully assessed. Care and treatment was not always planned and therefore not always delivered in line with their individual needs. We checked eight records, and saw that not all contained assessments of people's

care and support needs. Where apparent, these assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met.

Is the service well led?

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. We identified a number of concerns throughout the inspection that had not been identified and addressed via audit and

monitoring systems. Audits were not robust and did not address issues identified.

Staff told us that they felt supported and well led but did not receive regular supervision. They also said that they had their working practices assessed via spot checks by senior care staff. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of law in relation to assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. One person said: 'The girls that come to see me are wonderful, always polite and chatty. I'm very happy with the visits I get.'

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We spoke with three care workers about protecting vulnerable adults. All the care workers we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of abuse and the risks of abuse.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. One staff member told us: "We have a good team here; we are all supportive of each other."

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.