Sterling House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Whilst the service had made improvements since our last inspection, they remained in breach of one regulation relating to the management and governance of the service. The provider had introduced a quality monitoring system but this needed further development as it had not been fully effective at identifying and promptly rectifying all shortfalls found during this assessment. We also found the provider had unduly delayed in acting upon feedback relating to safety from a stakeholder. In addition, the system in place to allow the provider to have effective oversight of the service was poor and required further improvement. These shortfalls had placed people at risk of harm. Further improvement was required in ensuring all staff, and others, understood the service’s aims, objectives, and values and systems were required to monitor and assess this. More detailed information needed to be made available to people considering moving into Sterling House and the service needed to have effective systems in place to monitor the culture within the service.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst the service’s Statement of Purpose (a document that describes what a service does, where they do it and who for) described its aims, objectives and values, these weren’t widely made available to people considering moving into the service. Although staff now demonstrated the values expected within a care setting, some raised concerns, along with some relatives, about the past culture of the service. The provider, therefore, needs to ensure they have systems in place to assess, monitor and drive improvement in relation to the culture within the service and ensure staff fully understand the service’s aims, objectives and values. However, both the relatives we spoke with, and staff, told us the culture within the service had improved and continued to do so.

The service had only recently employed a new manager at the time of this assessment however people, and staff, provided positive feedback on them. Staff described the new manager as professional, helpful and responsive and felt confident they could further improve the service. One staff member said the appointment of a new manager meant, ‘Exciting times ahead and I can’t wait to see what changes are implemented.’ The provider had completed appropriate recruitment checks on the new manager and they demonstrated, through discussion, that they had the skills, experience and knowledge expected to manage a service such as Sterling House. The manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and described to us the plans they had in place to improve the service which demonstrated insight. Some staff did, however, state they did not regularly see the provider. We expect this to improve once the provider implements their plans to monitor and assess the service themselves on a regular basis.

Staff told us they felt able to speak to the manager should they have any concerns and had confidence the manager had the skills to appropriately manage and improve the service further. We saw that there was a speaking up policy in place and that this was widely available to staff, and others, within the service. We saw that staff meetings were used as an open forum for discussion and improving knowledge, and the manager had plans in place to further develop this approach. For example, the manager informed us they had arranged a staff meeting to reflect and learn from an incident that had recently occurred within the service. A service user and relative meeting was also planned to share findings from this assessment once completed.

We saw that the service had a diverse workforce who had been fairly recruited and whose wellbeing was considered. This included staff receiving regular training, support and supervisions, appraisals, and staff meetings. Staff told us they felt included and supported as a workforce and that they were encouraged to learn and grow. Some staff and relatives we spoke with stated the culture within the home had needed bettering but that this had improved and continued to do so; the manager agreed and had plans in place to address this.

The governance systems in place had not been fully effective at identifying and quickly rectifying concerns and shortfalls. For example, the system had failed to identify that some safeguarding concerns had not been reported to the local authority as required and this had placed people at risk. Furthermore, whilst the service was aware of the need to cover radiators to mitigate the risk of scalds and burns, there had been a delay in actioning this. Audits were in place to assess and monitor various aspects of the service however these needed further development and embedding to make them fully effective. Whilst plans were in place for provider audits to take place, these were yet to be completed although we were assured this would commence following our assessment. Whilst the provider met with the manager on a weekly basis, no records were kept of these meetings so we were unable to fully assess provider oversight.

The service needed to improve their relationship and involvement within the local community however the manager had identified this and had plans in place to address this. We also saw an example where the service had failed to share information with another stakeholder, therefore missing an opportunity to further improve and fully protect the people who lived at Sterling House. However, we saw that the service worked well with health professionals to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained and that they received the care and treatment they needed. We saw that referrals to health professionals were prompt and appropriate. The relatives and staff we spoke with confirmed this.

The service had made improvements since our last inspection however they had not used every opportunity to learn, improve and keep people safe; they had not actively contributed to safe and effective practice. However, we saw the provider had made many improvements since our last inspection that had benefitted the people who lived at Sterling House. These improvements needed to continue and the systems in place to assess, monitor and drive improvements within the service needed further development and embedding including in relation to using safety incidents as learning opportunities. The provider had not been involved in any pilots or research projects and they now needed to consider using creative and innovative ways to ensure they delivered equity of experience and quality of life for people.