• Care Home
  • Care home

St George's Nursing Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

42 Kneesworth Street, Royston, Hertfordshire, SG8 5AQ (01763) 242243

Provided and run by:
Grand Park Homes Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 15 July 2026

St George’s Nursing Home is an adapted building providing accommodation, personal and nursing care to 19 older people at the time of the inspection. The service is registered to support up to 24 people. The service supports older people and people living with dementia across two floors and also provides nursing care. There are limited areas for communal access, and the service is adapted to meet the needs of people with impaired mobility and also has shared rooms which we looked into further.

Date of Inspection: We commenced this inspection on 23 July 2026 with a visit to the service. Due to the concerns found during our visit we sought assurance from the provider on 30 July 2026 and met with them on 05 August 2026 to share our findings and inform them of the actions being taken. The inspection was concluded on 8 September 2026. This inspection was undertaken in response to recent concerns shared with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Since our last inspection published on 15 January 2026, we found the service had not made the required improvements to meet the breaches of regulations and improve the standard of care provided to people. We found the provider was still in breach of 2 regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We also identified new breaches of regulations in relation to safeguarding, staffing, medicines management, notifications to CQC of significant events and a poor overall culture.

There was not a proactive learning culture and risks to people were not managed safely. The provider did not follow local authority or CQC safeguarding procedures to ensure people were safeguarded from harm. Incidents where people experienced harm were documented by staff, but these incidents were not always responded to by managers. We identified ineffective monitoring and management of risks associated with dehydration, nutrition, and skin integrity. Records and observations showed some people remained in bed for prolonged periods without access to adequate food or fluids and without regular repositioning. This meant risks relating to dehydration, malnutrition, and the development of pressure ulcers were not consistently identified, monitored, or mitigated, placing people at risk of avoidable harm. The provider had not ensured enough trained staff were on duty to always meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks to ensure staff working in the service were safe to do so were not always carried out. People’s medicines were not always managed safely or administered at the times the prescriber intended. The provider did not ensure the environment was safe, and outstanding fire safety actions from our previous inspection remained outstanding. Staff did not complete regular fire drills or simulated evacuations.

Governance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided were not effectively operated. The provider and management team failed to identify the issues highlighted during this assessment. We sought additional assurances from the provider to ensure the critical risks identified were being monitored regularly and people received care that was safe and appropriate. The provider had not worked in partnership with other health professionals within their community in a positive or proactive manner. A shared culture had not been embedded within the service by the provider to ensure people received appropriate care that met their needs fully. Leadership at all management levels did not support the delivery of safe care for the people using the service. We made referrals to help keep people safe during the inspection because serious concerns were found, including the local authority safeguarding team, commissioning team and the fire service.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

Following the feedback provided to the management team they have provided assurances that some action has been taken to address the shortfalls.

 

People's experience of the service

Updated 15 July 2026

We spoke with 5 people and received feedback from 6 relatives.

People gave mixed views about if they were happy using the service and if staff supported them in a way they liked. Some people and relatives told us staff and managers were kind and helpful in most cases. A relative told us, “The staff and (clinical lead) are lovely.”

People gave mixed views about if they felt safe.

People and relatives gave mixed views about if staff knew them well and if care was personalised. People and relatives told us they were not always involved in developing their care plans.

People’s experience of how their care and support needs were met varied.

A person said, “It’s alright here, there are good things and not so good things. Like yesterday, we were out on the patio, singing songs, there was coffee and milkshakes, and it was nice.” A relative told us, “[Person] does not have personalised support.” However, another relative of a person told us, “As a family we are beyond happy with the care and attention my [person] received whilst being in St George’s. Compliments go to all the staff and their devoted dedication to the residents living there.”

Many people living in the home were unable to give us feedback on the care they received. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.