Sterling House

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

People’s needs had been holistically assessed and the service worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure care was delivered in a way that achieved positive outcomes for people. Staff worked well together, and with others, to maintain people’s quality and experience of the service. People’s consent had been sought and they were supported to access health services to aid their health and wellbeing.

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.

People’s needs had been holistically assessed prior to moving into Sterling House, and regularly thereafter, meaning people received care that was appropriate and effective, and developed to meet people’s individual needs. People’s relatives told us the service met their family member’s needs in a person-centred manner that achieved good outcomes for them. One relative told us how effective the service had been supporting their family member through a bereavement; they described the care as ‘extremely good’. Another relative said, ‘Sterling House are doing a great job caring for my [family member] and all the other residents.’ Staff knew people’s needs well and this was confirmed by the relatives we spoke with. Staff were able to describe people’s individual needs and they told us they had time to meet these in a person-centred manner. Staff told us they had time to read people’s care plans and get to know them during their inductions, and this continued over time. Care plans confirmed people’s needs had been holistically assessed and we saw that they contained enough information for staff to deliver individualised care and support. They considered people’s strengths and they encouraged independence. Care plans contained respectful language that put the person in control of the care they received and we saw that these had been regularly reviewed.

People, and their relatives as appropriate, had been included in discussions around their care and how this was to be delivered. We saw that this was based on good practice guidance, and used nationally recognised assessment tools, to keep people safe and to provide effective care. People’s relatives confirmed the care their family members received was effective and achieved positive outcomes for them. One relative said, ‘I have no reason to believe Sterling House is an unsafe environment and I have faith that the staff take very good care of [family member].’ Staff demonstrated they knew people’s individual needs and what was required to support them to remain happy, and well. We saw that care plans were detailed and individualised. They used respectful language and focused on people’s strengths and abilities whilst providing staff with information on what support they needed to provide to help maintain people’s independence and choice. We saw they had been reviewed regularly with people and their relatives as appropriate and the relatives we spoke with confirmed this.

The relatives we spoke with talked positively about the staff that now supported their family members. They told us they worked well together to provide good quality care, involving other professionals as required. One relative said, ‘The staff are all competent and they always make us feel welcome when we visit’. Another relative told us about a time their family member was discharged from hospital to Sterling House. They told us, ‘[Family member] came out of hospital and the doctor was excellent. The home worked with them well.’ Staff told us their colleagues were supportive and they worked well together. Although the manager was new in post at the time of this assessment, staff were confident they were the right person to lead the home. They told us they found the manager supportive, knowledgeable and helpful. Staff were able to give us examples of when they worked with other professionals and this demonstrated they worked in a collaborative manner. The records we viewed confirmed this.

We saw the service had worked closely with a range of health professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing and the relatives we spoke with confirmed this; they had no concerns in how the service managed their family member’s health needs. People saw health professionals, such as the dentist, chiropodist and GP, on a regular basis. We saw that the service liaised with other professionals, such as the occupational therapist, continence clinic, falls team, and speech and language therapist, as required and that referrals were made promptly. We saw that care plans were in place for specific health needs and that these mitigated any associated risks and provided staff with the information they needed to support people’s health and wellbeing.

We saw that people, and their relatives as appropriate, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received and that regular reviews took place. This included at the start of the service and on a regular basis thereafter; the relatives we spoke with confirmed this. One relative said, ‘Yes, we were involved in writing [family member’s] care plan.’ They went on to tell us the care plan was reviewed every month. Relatives told us the service was good at keeping them informed and updated on their family member’s health and wellbeing and were quick to make them aware of any safety incidents. One staff member we spoke with talked in depth about how they involved people and their family members in the care people received. They told us they were currently meeting with people and their relatives to form life stories and discuss the sensitive subject of end of life care; a relative we spoke with confirmed this and said, ‘We are now working on [family member’s] end of life and funeral wishes with [staff member] so that’s positive, it’s good to have it recorded.’ The care plans we viewed showed that people’s care needs were regularly reviewed and monitored to continuously improve it. The manager gave us examples of their plans to build on this approach and had, following individual consultations with the people that used the service, contacted various organisations to see if social relationships could be formed to help improve people’s experiences and outcomes.

We saw that people’s consent was sought prior to delivering care. We saw that this happened at the time of care delivery and more formally via written consent. We saw that staff sought people’s consent before assisting them with daily activities such as assisting them to mobilise around the home and supporting them to eat and drink. For example, we saw a staff member ask a person whether they would like assistance with their lunch. Formal written consent was in place for various aspects of the service such as care delivery, the use of photographs, and the use of closed circuit television (CCTV). We saw that where the people who used the service had others legally authorised to make decisions on their behalf, consent was given by these representatives as required. However, further improvement was needed to the provider’s service user guide to ensure people were fully informed about their right to advocacy services.