Rated Care Homes

St Georges Ltd

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2017, most recently Good in August 2026.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 258 of 298

    rated home care services in Essex are rated Good, like this one.

St Georges Ltd: inspection record

Home care, Essex

Rated Good in August 2026.

St Georges Ltd: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
  2. G
    A PL+US Caring Service Good, 0.3 miles away
  3. –
    QV Care Services Ltd - Main Office Not yet rated, 0.3 miles away
  4. G
    Radis Community Care (Helen Court) Good, 0.4 miles away
  5. G
    Calm Futures Good, 0.9 miles away

See all home care services in Essex

See all home care services in Witham

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 7 August 2026 (assessment visit 16 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

St Georges LTD is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes, including live-in care.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

St Georges LTD provides support to younger adults, older adults, people living with dementia, people with learning disabilities, people with physical disabilities and people living with sensory impairments. At the time of the inspection,15 people were being supported but only 10 people were being supported with the regulated activity.

We carried out this assessment on 16 June until 29 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We assessed the service against 'Right support, right care, right culture' guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The provider had safeguarding systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies in place relating to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Staff understood their responsibility to report concerns and how to recognise signs of abuse. The provider recorded accidents and incidents and ensured that risks to people’s safety were identified, and actions were taken to ensure any risks to people was mitigated, for example, environmental safety. Root cause analysis was undertaken in relation to aspects of safety such as medication errors.

We reviewed Mental Capacity Assessments and found that staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We saw no evidence of people being subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and people had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Staff told us they received training and felt comfortable with asking for additional training when required. One staff member told us, “We have online training and regular training, especially if there is new equipment. If I am unsure of something I approach the office, recently enquiring about end-of-life care.” Training included competency checks such as the safe administration of medication to ensure staff felt confident to carry out their roles effectively and ensure people’s safety. Staff had received training in equality and diversity and understood the importance of promoting people’s independence and maintaining their dignity.

Care was delivered by a consistent team of staff who knew people well. Staff told us they had built good relationships with the people they supported and their families. Feedback from people and their relatives supported this. Comments from staff included, “The staff at St Georges treat people well, with many of us putting a lot of extra energy into making sure people get what they want and need.”

Care plans and risk assessments we reviewed were person centred and contained sufficient detail to ensure staff knew how to safely support people. Staff told us they were kept informed of changes to people’s needs and reviews were carried out on care plans and risk assessments. Comments from staff included, “These types of things are always added to the care plan, and this gets notified to staff via our app along with what has changed. For more significant or large changes, staff are also usually contacted separately and spoken to.” People’s health and wellbeing were monitored, with appropriate escalation to professionals when concerns were identified.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the safety of the service such as audits, spot checks and surveys. We reviewed surveys and it was clear what actions had been taken when scoring from the surveys had fallen below expectations. Feedback of the service was sought by the provider to help with driving improvement and ensure a good quality of care for people receiving support from St Georges LTD.

We received mixed feedback from staff in relation to their experience of working at the service. Some staff described feeling supported and able to raise any concerns, others reported not always feeling able to raise issues with management or felt listened to. Comments included, “I feel able to raise concerns or make a complaint if needed” and “I do not feel like a can make a complaint to be honest.” We have shared this feedback with the registered manager to help with improvement around the organisational culture.

  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask the service

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the service did about any points in it.
  2. Ask how visit times are agreed and who covers when your usual carer is away.

Registration details

Registered manager
Joanne Windibank
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Domiciliary care service
Who it supports
Dementia, Learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

3 inspection reports, latest 23 March 2019. Latest assessment published 7 August 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
03877485 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Essex County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does St Georges Ltd provide nursing care?
The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for St Georges Ltd.
When was St Georges Ltd last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for St Georges Ltd was published on 7 August 2026.
Who runs St Georges Ltd?
St Georges Ltd is run by St Georges Limited.
What is St Georges Ltd's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 7 August 2026.