- Care home
St David's Care Home
Assessment report published 24 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 15 June to 23 June 2026.
St David’s Care Home is a nursing home for up to 76 younger and older adults, including people with physical disabilities.
The service was registered with CQC on 9 July 2024, and this was the first assessment. The service was previously managed by a different registered provider. Following this assessment, we have rated the service requires improvement.
We identified breaches of legal regulations relating to premises and equipment, good governance and staffing.
The provider’s systems for managing the service and monitoring risks were not always effective. Staff did not feel empowered to speak up. They told us when they did, their concerns were not always acted on. Some people and relatives felt there were not enough opportunities to speak with managers. Failure to ensure all staff felt able to speak up, without fear of negative consequences, and failure to and act on the feedback from staff and other stakeholders, placed people at increased risk of inappropriate and unsafe care.
The environment was not always safe, suitable or well-maintained and the provider had not always recognised when things needed to change. For example, identifying environmental risks or understanding the impact of these for people. This meant people did not always receive person-centred care which reflected their needs.
The provider did not always deploy enough staff to meet people’s needs in a person-centred way. People experienced delays in receiving care and support. They were not always able to do the things they wanted to do. This impacted on their emotional wellbeing.
Staff did not always feel supported by managers.
There were systems to involve people, but not everyone felt these were followed and wanted more information and opportunities to give feedback.
Staff assessed people’s needs and worked with external professionals to help make sure these needs were met. However, staff felt assessments were sometimes rushed when people first moved to the home, increasing the risk they would not receive the right care. Representatives of the provider told us they had robust systems for assessing new people and supporting safe transitions to the service.
Staff monitored people’s wellbeing and responded when they identified changes in people’s needs. Although staff and professionals felt concerns they highlighted to managers about equipment were not always acted on.
Staff completed a range of training and provided evidence-based care and support. People received their medicines in a safe way.
The provider carried out a range of audits. When these audits identified issues, the provider took action to address these. However, audits were not always effective at identifying where improvements were needed.
There were systems for staff to learn from accidents, incidents and complaints. The provider investigated allegations of abuse and worked with the local authority to help protect people from avoidable harm. The provider ensured legal authorisations were in place where decisions about people’s care amounted to a deprivation of liberty.
We discussed our findings with the registered manager and senior managers. They were already aware of some of the concerns and had started to make improvements. We have asked the provider to complete an action plan telling is how they will make the required improvements.
People's experience of this service
People did not always have a good experience living at the service. A person explained there were difficulties on the day they moved to the service. They commented, “The whole situation was upsetting and could have been avoided if the admission was managed better.” Some people did not feel consulted or involved. They told us when they had spoken up about their concerns, these were not acted on. A person commented, “I was worried and I spoke with the manager. But they just did not seem to listen.”
People told us they had to wait for care and sometimes their care needs were not met. Comments from people and their relatives included, “I am concerned [person] is spending too much time in bed” and “I feel safe, but they are very short staffed.”
People told us problems with the hot water supply had affected their ability to take showers when they wanted. A person explained, “It’s been an issue for some time. I gather that the boiler turns off automatically at a certain point and just stops. It affects things like showering. The carers must go around looking for a room which still has hot water.” Other people commented on the condition of equipment and parts of the building. A relative told us, “We were concerned about holes in the [bedroom] walls. Also, the window blind needs replacing. It is flimsy and stained. I will probably end up buying one myself.”
People were able to make choices, although they said these were sometimes limited by systems or staff deployment. For example, people told us they could not access the garden, and menu choices were not always available. People told us call bells were not always answered or staff did not always stay to provide care when they did respond to a call bell.
However, people liked the care workers and nurses and told us they were kind, polite and caring. Their comments included, “Care workers are lovely” and “I feel they are good and very friendly.” People also told us they liked the organised activities.