The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Sterling Care and Support Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Box Studios, 17 Boundary Street, Liverpool, Merseyside, L5 9UB

Provided and run by:
Sterling Care & Support Ltd

All Inspections

14 September 2017

During a routine inspection

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.

To Be Confirmed

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 23 and 27 April 2015. 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 is a registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide ‘personal care’. The service supports people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 20 people who required support with personal care.

At our last inspection in June 2013 the service was meeting the regulations we inspected.

The office base is located in the Vauxhall area of Merseyside. The office is on the second floor of a building and is accessible for people who use wheelchairs. The office premises provided the facilities required for the running of the business.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People who used the service gave us good feedback about the agency. They told us they were supported by a small number of staff and therefore they received good consistency of staff. People told us the service was reliable and staff took their time and always stayed for the agreed duration of their call. People told us staff knew what was expected of them and asked if there was anything else they could do during the course of their visits.

People who used the service told us they felt safe in the way staff supported them. People were protected from avoidable harm and potential abuse because the provider had systems in place to minimise the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and information about managing risks was recorded in people’s care plans.

There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Staff were able to accommodate changes to visits as requested by people who used the service or their relatives.

People were provided with good care and support that was tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff told us they felt well informed about people’s needs and how to meet them.

Staff supported people to remain healthy and liaised with healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs. When people required support with their meals and diet this was documented in their care plan and people told us the staff met their needs in line with this.

Some of the people who used the service were supported with their medicines and staff told us they were trained and felt confident to assist people with this. However, people’s care plans did not included an appropriate level of information and guidance about how to support them with their medicines and medication administration records were not being maintained appropriately. We have made a recommendation about this in the body of the report.

The manager had a level of knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. They were able to tell us how they would ensure a decision was made in a person’s best interests if this was required. This included referring to multi-disciplinary professionals as appropriate.

Pre-employment checks were carried out on new staff before they started working for the agency. However, we found that staff employment references were not always being attained in line with best practice.

Staff told us they felt well supported and they had been provided with regular training linked to their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us there was an open culture throughout the service. They told us they felt confident to raise any concerns and felt that their concerns would be dealt with appropriately.

Systems were in place to check on the quality of the service and ensure improvements were made. These included ‘spot checks’ on areas of practice and seeking people’s views about the quality of the service. We found there was room for improvement in this area as some checks were not being carried out consistently or on a regular basis.