- Care home
St John's Care Home
Assessment report published 4 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Dates of inspection: 29 July 2026 to 31 August 2026.
St John’s Care Home is a residential care home supporting older people and people living with dementia.
People and relatives told us people were safe and staff responded when support was needed. Staff understood how to report concerns and people were supported to access healthcare services. However, risks were not always fully assessed, recorded or reviewed. Staff knowledge of some health conditions was inconsistent and lessons from incidents were not always embedded.
People had access to healthcare professionals and relatives were involved in discussions about care. However, care plans were often incomplete, generic or did not accurately reflect current needs. Records were not always updated and mental capacity assessments did not consistently demonstrate how decisions had been reached.
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, caring and compassionate. Staff generally knew people well and supported them with warmth and respect. However, dignity was not always promoted. Some records were not person-centred and people's preferences, rights and individuality were not always fully reflected in care planning and decision making.
People received support when they needed it and felt able to raise concerns. Complaints were generally responded to and people had access to activities and healthcare services. However, opportunities to access the community independently were limited and records did not always support personalised care. People's views about outcomes and future goals were not always routinely explored.
Staff and relatives described the registered manager as approachable and supportive. Staff understood the provider's values and felt able to speak up. However, governance systems were not effective and had not identified many of the concerns found during the inspection. The registered manager demonstrated gaps in their understanding of some regulatory requirements, risk management and specialist areas of care. Learning and improvement were not always embedded, which limited the provider's ability to identify risks and drive sustainable improvement.
The provider was in breach of 3 regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, person-centred care and effective governance and oversight. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
In contrast to our findings, people gave positive feedback about their day-to-day experiences of living at the service and consistently described staff as kind, caring and supportive. People told us staff treated them with respect, responded when they needed help and took time to chat with them. People said they felt safe and were able to raise concerns if they needed to. Relatives also spoke positively about the care their family members received and many described staff as compassionate, patient and dedicated. They felt the home was welcoming and said they would recommend the service to others.
People and relatives told us staff knew people well and understood their needs. They said communication was generally good and relatives were usually kept informed about changes in their family member's health and wellbeing. Most relatives felt involved in discussions about care and told us staff worked well with healthcare professionals to support people's needs. People spoke positively about activities, friendships and opportunities to take part in daily life at the home, although some people preferred to spend time in their rooms.
While people expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, out inspection found care planning, risk management, consent process and governance oversight did not meet the expected standards. Records did not always reflect people's individual needs, preferences and wishes. Some relatives raised concerns about staff communication, particularly where language barriers made conversations more difficult to understand. Others felt there were limited opportunities for people to access the community independently.