St Giles Charity Estates

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider worked with people and their relatives to gather detailed information about their preferences and backgrounds. This helped staff deliver personalised care.

People told us their support reflected their individual needs and choices. One person said, “They know all my preferences. Even in the kitchen they know I like my food well done.” Another person said, “I am content the way the place is run, the food, the staff, everything they do to keep you happy, never any disputes, its wonderful and I am a moaner, I am hard to please”.

A relative told us staff spent time getting to know people and understood their family member’s personality. They shared that when one new person first moved in, (relative) was very sad and unsettled. However, when they visited recently, (relative) appeared happy, calm and settled.

Bedrooms were personalised with people’s own belongings, such as photographs, books and ornaments. Staff showed a good understanding of people as individuals and adapted their care to meet their needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care from a consistent group of staff, which helped provide continuity and build positive relationships. One relative told us, “They have a hairdresser and the chiropodist comes in. It saves me a job too, and (relative) likes going to the hairdresser.”

Leaders showed they were committed to working with external professionals, including GPs, district nurses and the local authority, to make sure care was well coordinated. Staff understood the importance of following professional advice and explained how they used this guidance to maintain continuity and support people’s wellbeing.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Information was available in different formats and languages when needed. This included large print and digital formats to meet individual needs. Regular newsletters were shared to keep people informed about news and events in the home. People’s communication needs were identified and clearly recorded in their care plans. These included guidance for staff on how best to support each person.

People had access to mobile phones and tablets so they could stay in touch with family and friends. Staff had received data protection training, and we observed they were careful not to discuss people’s personal information in communal areas.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy explaining how people and relatives could raise concerns. This included details of external organisations, such as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

People told us they knew how to raise a concern. One person said, “We have a yearly review, and we sign to agree the plan.” Others told us they attended residents’ meetings held every “two or three months,” and that family members could attend if they wished. They said, “If we bring something up, it’s dealt with.”

A staff member told us, “If I have any concerns, I can speak to the manager straight away, and I know she will listen and do something about it.”

There was a record of complaints and compliments. The provider also gathered feedback through an annual satisfaction survey to understand people’s experiences. The most recent survey was sent out in January 2026, and responses were still being received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

During this inspection, we did not identify any concerns about people’s ability to access the service. Managers and staff understood that people have the right to equal access to health and care support and worked to remove any barriers.

The home was spacious, well organised and free from hazards, including the outdoor areas. This supported people with mobility needs. Clear signage was in place to help people move around safely and independently.

Reasonable adjustments were made to ensure people could access healthcare and external services in a way that suited them. This helped prevent delays, promoted equality and protected people’s rights.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. People told us they were treated fairly and with respect. Care plans reflected what was important to each person, including their family relationships, social interests, cultural background and spiritual needs.

Staff knew how to access key information quickly in a medical emergency, helping to ensure people received the right care without delay.

The provider involved people and, where appropriate, their relatives in planning and reviewing care. Those who wished to be involved said they felt listened to and able to share their views. People and relatives spoke positively about the care and support they received.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to plan for important changes in their lives, including decisions about their future care and treatment.

Where appropriate, people and their relatives were consulted about end-of-life care. If people wished to discuss this, their preferences were clearly recorded in their care plans. Staff also respected the wishes of anyone who did not want to talk about end-of-life arrangements.

At the time of our inspection, no one was receiving end-of-life care.