- Homecare service
St David's House
Assessment report published 9 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: assessment activity started on 5 May 2026 and concluded on 14 May 2026. We visited the office on the 6 May 2026. St David's House provides care and support to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant's own home. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this assessment looked at people's personal care and support. The service is registered to provide support to people over the age of 65 who may be living with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. Personal care is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people do receive support, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection there were 3 people receiving a regulated activity of personal care. During the inspection we assessed all the quality statements under the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
The home was last rated good (published 25 April 2019). This assessment was prompted by the age of the service’s previous rating.
Overall, staff were recruited to the service safely.
People received safe care and support from dedicated staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs. The registered manager assessed risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. People were involved in taking positive risks and remaining as independent as possible. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed by staff who had been trained to administer medicines safely.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe with the care packages currently in place. Staff undertook a range of training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively and safely. Staff told us they were supported and had access to the registered manager and team leaders who supervised and guided them.
The registered manager assessed, planned for and monitored people’s needs with them and their relatives. People had consented to their care and were able to make choices which were clearly documented within their care records.
There were effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service. The registered manager monitored key aspects of care and carried out regular quality assurance checks and audits, taking timely action to ensure safety, compliance, and continuous improvement. The registered manager and team leaders were approachable, and staff felt supported to raise concerns.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 1 person who used the service and 2 relatives about their experience of the care provided. No concerns were raised regarding the care people received or about the service. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. People were treated as individuals and experienced personalised care tailored to meet their needs. One person said, “I like it here. Can have a laugh with the staff.” A relative told us, “[Relative] needs are met. They are ok and well supported.” People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well. Staff listened to people and took time to understand what mattered to them, including how they preferred to be supported. People were fully involved in decisions about their care, and their choices were respected. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and staff provided support only when this was needed. We saw people enjoying each other’s and staff company in communal areas. For example, during luncheon club and community dining. Staff encouraged people to engage in activities and use communal areas to promote wellbeing and engagement and to reduce isolation but equally respected the wishes of people who wished to stay in their own homes. People told us they were happy to speak with staff, team leaders and the registered manager to address any concerns.