Sterling House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People received individualised care that met their needs. Person-centred care plans were developed with people, and those important to them, and these were regularly reviewed with people’s involvement. Whilst people received a service user guide with information on the service to help them make an informed decision of whether Sterling House was appropriate for them, this needed further improvement to ensure people had full information. Ways to seek informal feedback on the quality of the service was in place and, at the time of the assessment, plans were in place to develop more formal methods. The service had a complaints procedure in place and we saw complaints had been investigated and responded to. The service does, however, need to ensure people have access to information on advocacy services.

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.

Relatives told us their family members received good quality person-centred care that met their needs. They told us staff knew people and their needs well and supported them in a kindly manner. One relative said of the care their family member received, ‘It has been a godsend, absolutely brilliant.’ Staff demonstrated they knew people’s needs well and told us they had time to deliver person-centred care; our observations confirmed this. One staff member said, ‘There is a lot of support for people.’ Another staff member described the care delivered to people as, ‘very good.’

The relatives we spoke with told us the service worked well with other professionals to ensure their family members received continuity of care and treatment. For example, relatives told us the service was quick to seek advice of health professionals such as the GP and the records we viewed confirmed this. Staff agreed that they worked well with others to support people’s needs and ensure they received the care they needed. One staff member was able to describe what input a person had received from a variety of health professionals and why these were required.

The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the accessible information standard that applies to people who use a service and have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment, or sensory loss. We saw this standard was met. The relatives we spoke with told us the service was good at communicating with them and keeping them updated on their family member. One relative said, ‘Staff are always quick to advise me via email of anything affecting [family member’s] health or needs.’ Another relative told us that following their family member experiencing a fall, the service, ‘Within 5 minutes had called me to tell me what had happened.’ Whilst we saw some good levels of information available to people who used the service, their relatives, and staff, some improvements were needed in ensuring people received full information prior to moving into Sterling House. However, we saw that safeguarding information, and the service’s relevant policies and procedures were readily available to people and that confidential and sensitive information was available to people, but securely stored.

We saw that people, and their relatives, were involved in care planning and making decisions about care and treatment and the relatives we spoke with confirmed this. People, their relatives, and staff were able to provide informal feedback on the service and we saw that people had recently been involved in changing and developing the food menu. As only 4 people were using the service at the time of this assessment, seeking informal feedback on a one to one basis was achievable. However, the service understood the need for more formal methods of gathering feedback was required, and this has begun. Despite no relative or service user meetings having taken place, the relatives we spoke with told us they were able to provide feedback on the care their family members received and that they felt listened to. The manager understood this needed to change as the service grew and had plans in place to undertake regular relative and service user meetings in the future. Staff told us they felt involved and engaged in the service and had methods available to them to provide feedback such as supervisions and staff meetings. We saw from the minutes of staff meetings that they were used as an open forum for discussion on the service and ways to improve it.

We saw that people received the care they needed at the time they needed it. Relatives agreed their family members received person-centred and individualised care and that there were enough staff to deliver prompt care and support. Staff confirmed this through discussion. The service used a dependency tool to monitor staffing levels and ensure there were enough staff to deliver care when people needed it. There was also an on call rota in place to support staff should they need extra help in an emergency. Sterling House was accessible although those people living there required staff support to mobilise around the building. This was because some areas required a code to access and/or people needed assistance to use the lift or stairlift. The relatives we spoke with did raise concerns about staff’s abilities to be able to provide prompt and person-centred support to their family members as the service grew, and that the accessibility of the premises may impact on this. For example, one relative raised concern that there was only one toilet available on the ground floor where the communal areas were located. They were concerned this would not be enough should more people move into Sterling House.

The service was available to one of the groups of people who are most likely to experience inequality in outcomes; older people living with dementia. The service provided individual care suites that included a private lounge, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. Some of the relatives we spoke with told us this had influenced the decision of their family member to move into Sterling House. One relative said, ‘It was a home from home for [family member]’ whilst another told us, ‘[Family member’s] accommodation is fantastic. The facilities far better than anywhere else we visited and we have furnished [family member’s] rooms with items they are familiar with from their family home.’ Whilst the accommodation is appropriate to encourage and maintain independence for some people living with dementia, the provider needs to ensure they carefully assess the needs of people who wish to live at Sterling House in the future. This is to ensure people’s safety and that the accommodation type and layout of the building is suitable in meeting their needs, including those related to living with dementia and other health conditions.

At the time of this assessment, nobody who lived at Sterling House required end of life care. However, people had end of life care plans in place and the service was currently working with people, and their families, to make sure these were appropriate and met people’s wishes. One relative we spoke with confirmed this and told us it was a positive step and that they felt assured having their family member’s wishes recorded. We saw that staff had also received training in end of life care.