St Gregory's House Limited

We assessed the quality statements from all the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led and we found a breach of the regulation for good governance and the overall rating for this service has changed from good to requires improvement.

A variety of records for the safe care and treatment of people were not always accurate, current or recorded sufficiently. Records used for the management, oversight and safety of the service were not always effective. This included records for the management of medicines, accidents and incidents, assessments of risks relating to people’s care and the oversight of the quality and safety of the home.

There had been no registered manager or appointed clinical lead in post since July 2025. There was a newly formed management team consisting of a manager, team leader and office manager. They were being supported in their new positions by the nominated individual for the company who was also taking the role of head of care in the home. Along with them there was a deputy manager.

There were a range of quality monitoring and auditing processes in place. However, issues seen during this assessment had not always been identified through those oversight processes and systems. The management team took immediate action to improve those processes to ensure they captured and could rectify those areas of concern. The new management team was in place and demonstrated a positive, proactive approach. They showed insight and knowledge of where improvements were needing to be made. Staff told us they felt very supported by the management team and were able to report concerns and said they were listened to.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities. There were enough staff with the right qualifications and experience. Staff had received training and some supervision to support them in delivering safe and effective care. During the assessment we identified some concerns with the management of risks in the environment. These were addressed by the management team during the assessment. The home was clean, and processes were in place to manage infection prevention. People received their medicines on time and as they were prescribed.

Decisions were made in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity to do so themselves. However, these were not always accurately recorded or always completed in line with best practice. Some people and those important to them told us they had been involved in their care planning. People were appropriately supported with eating and drinking. The staff team worked well with other organisations and services to support people to manage their health and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. There was a designated member of staff assigned to support with some in house activities to people including those cared for or who chose to stay in their rooms. People were treated as individuals and with kindness, dignity and compassion and staff knew them well. People were encouraged to maintain their independence. Staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way. Staff feedback was positive about how they were supported in their work. However, some staff reported that on a few occasions during the year their pay had not always been received at the time they had expected it.

The service worked with commissioners to ensure continuity of care for people was effectively managed. People’s individual communication needs were identified, and information was provided in an accessible way. People and their relatives were able to give feedback on care. Staff understood about equality and diversity. The service contacted emergency services when required and knew when to involve specialist services in people’s care. There was a system in place for responding to concerns or complaints. People’s end-of-life wishes were noted and reflected in their care records.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.