- Homecare service
St Georges Ltd
Assessment report published 7 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
St Georges LTD is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes, including live-in care.
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.
People's experience of this service
We received feedback from people and their relatives/representatives. People and their relatives spoke positively about their experience with St Georges LTD and the care and support they receive.
People and their relatives told us they received care from a consistent and supportive staff team who were great at adapting to any changes to care and support needs. One relative told us, “[Relative’s] situation is getting much worse, but the care that’s provided, it’s absolutely amazing. They work with the occupational therapist to adapt things and amend the care plan – [relative] was hoisted for a while – they are amazing at adapting care at short notice to what [relative] needs.”
We received positive feedback around peoples’ experience of using the service and that they felt safe and treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted. One person told us, “They supervise more than anything, make sure I am okay. They do help me if I need it. When they are here, we work as a team, they treat me as an equal.” A relative told us, “[Relatives] walking is very limited, but they always ask [relative] if [relative] would like to go for a short walk just to keep [relatives] legs moving. Sometimes [relative] says yes, sometimes no. And they never push if [relative] is not up to doing it.” Another relative told us, “They try and help [relative] be independent.”
People and their relatives told us they were offered choices and their preferences were considered, for example if they had a preference for a male or female carer. Comments included, “We were asked, but we had no preference. We have had both.”
Feedback was consistently positive around care visits and staff arriving on time and staying for the duration of the care call. Comments included, “I get a weekly rota and if there are alterations, they let me know. They stay for the whole time, and I am confident they know what they are doing” and “[Relative] seems to have the same two or three staff and they have built a good rapport. [Relative] gets a rota, who is coming and the times. They stay for the full hour.” Another relative told us, “Absolutely bang on. They are excellent. Five minutes either way. Rarely late and it’s often five minutes before and if they get held up anywhere the office is immediately on the phone to tell me.”
People and their relatives told us they were involved in reviews of their care plans and risk assessments and that they had had an initial assessment of care prior to the service starting. Comments included, “Yes, we had an assessment. The lady from the office, [name], came in and did a full assessment of what was needed at the time” and “We do have the care review every year when we go through the care plan with them. I do get an updated copy of the care plan each time there is a change. We have had two new ones in the last two months.”
People and their relatives also told us they were kept informed by the registered manager or the office staff if there were any changes to the rota, the care staff or the call time. One person told us, “I am always notified of changes.” People and their relatives also told us the service were accommodating to any changes they may require. For example, one relative told us, “We had a hospital appointment, and [relative] did ask for as early as possible, and they accommodated that.” Feedback we received around being able to contact the office was positive. People and their relatives told us they had no issues with calling the out of hours phone if needed and that the service was responsive to different methods of communication, such as emails.
People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns and that the registered manager was approachable and they were confident any issues would be resolved quickly. One relative told us, “[Name] in the office, she has been there since we started and she has been amazing during the whole process – from care to live in care – and [name] - the transition has been great.” One person told us, “They always do something if I have any comments.”