Archived: Sterling Care and Support Limited

Updated 20 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

This inspection took place on Thursday 14 September, 2017 and was announced.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience who supported with phone calls to relatives. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information which was held on Sterling Care and Support. This included notifications we had received from the registered provider such as incidents which had occurred in relation to the people who were being supported at the two locations. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law.

A Provider Information Return (PIR) was not received prior to the inspection. This is the form that asks the provider to give some key information in relation to the service, what the service does well and what improvements need to be made. As we did not receive a PIR we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also contacted commissioners and the local authority prior to the inspection. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, five members of staff, three relatives, we visited two people who were receiving support and also spoke to one person over the phone.

We also spent time reviewing specific records and documents, including four care records of people who were receiving support,, four staff personnel files, staff training records, medication administration records and audits, complaints, accidents and incidents and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 20 October 2017

This inspection took place on Thursday 14 September and was announced. We gave the provider one day’s notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available.

Sterling Care and Support provides ‘personal care’ to people who live in their own homes. Different levels of care is provided to older people, people living with dementia, people who have physical disabilities, people living with sensory impairments and people living with mental health difficulties. The office base is located in the Kirkdale area of Liverpool and has suitable facilities which are needed to operate its services.

At the time of the inspection the registered provider was supporting 63 people across different areas of Liverpool. At the previous inspection, which took place in April, 2016 the registered provider was found to be complying with all regulations we inspect against.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager had a number of different systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the care being provided, ensuring that people were receiving safe, compassionate and effective care. Such systems included monthly ‘spot checks’ and monthly care plan and medication audits.

Staff were caring towards people they were supporting and it was evident to see that positive, respectful and caring relationships had been developed. People we spoke with during the inspection expressed that they felt supported, well cared for and felt they were provided with effective care. Relatives we spoke with told us that good quality care was being provided and they felt the staff genuinely cared for the people they were there to support.

Care files we reviewed during the inspection contained individual care plans and risk assessments which were reviewed and updated in order to minimise risk. Care plans were person centred and provided detailed information in relation to a person’s wishes, choices and preferences.

People were protected from avoidable harm and risk of abuse as there were robust safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were familiar with the area of safeguarding and knew how to report any concerns. Staff had completed the necessary safeguarding training which was in place.

Medication management systems had improved since the last inspection. People’s care plans included detailed information about how people needed to be supported with their medication, at what time of day people needed medication support, where medication was stored and who was ordering and disposing of medications.

Recruitment was safely managed. Staff personnel files demonstrated that effective recruitment practices were in place. This meant that all staff who were working for the registered provider had suitable and sufficient references and disclosure and barring system checks (DBS) in place. DBS checks ensure that staff who are employed to care and support people are suitable to work within a health and social care setting. This enables the registered manager to assess level of suitability for working with vulnerable adults.

Accidents and incidents were routinely recorded and care plans and risk assessments were updated accordingly. However there was no evidence of trends of accidents/incidents being analysed.

We have made a recommendation to the registered provider in relation to this area of safe care.

The registered manager had a good level of knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. They were aware of the best interest processes which needed to be applied if a person was assessed as lacking the capacity to make decisions for themselves. All senior staff within the organisation had received MCA training.

Staff expressed how they were fully supported in their roles; all necessary training had been completed and they felt that they were able to fulfil their roles effectively. Staff received regular supervisions, annual appraisals and regular team meetings were taking place.

People were provided with a ‘service user’ guide and the complaints procedure from the outset. People knew how to make a complaint and the registered provider had a sufficient complaints policy in place.