Garsewednack Residential Home

Updated 31 January 2026

Date of assessment: 9 to 24 February 2026. Garsewednack Residential Home provides accommodation for up to 21 people who require personal care. The service provides care to adults over 65 years living with a dementia. At the time of our assessment, 15 people were using the service.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of 6 legal regulations in relation to consent, dignity and respect, safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, governance and recruitment.

At this assessment we looked at whether the provider had made the improvements required and whether the service was delivering safe, effective and well-led care. Significant shortfalls remained, which meant the provider had not taken sufficient action to ensure consistent standards of quality and safety across the service. The provider remained in breach of 3 legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, and governance.

The provider had not ensured people consistently received safe care and treatment. Risks such as moving and handling, burns and falls from height were not always assessed or managed effectively. We found continued concerns in relation to medicines management, including “when required” medicines and topical creams not administered or recorded in line with national best practise guidance. These issues placed people at avoidable risk of harm

Governance systems continued to be ineffective. Audits were not always completed, and those which were, did not routinely identify shortfalls we found during our assessment. The registered manager had not maintained oversight of care records or environmental risks, and opportunities to improve the quality of the care provided at the service had been missed. Records relating to care delivery, repositioning, hydration and oversight were not always accurate or contemporaneous.

The provider had made some improvements. The environment was generally cleaner, and staff morale had improved. Staff were kind and caring in their interactions, and people and their relatives told us they felt respected and well supported. Care plans included more detail than previously. At this assessment, the provider was no longer in breach of the legal regulations relating to dignity and respect, consent and staffing.

We inspected the service in September 2025 and rated it inadequate. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

In instances where CQC have decided to takecivil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

Updated 31 January 2026

We spoke with 3 people living at the service, 2 health professionals and 3 relatives to help assess and understand how people’s care needs were being met. 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.

People told us staff were kind, patient and approachable, and we observed warm, respectful interactions which helped people feel at ease. Staff knew people well and used familiar conversation, humour and gentle prompts to support their comfort and reassurance. Relatives also described staff as caring and told us they felt the culture had improved since the last inspection.

Some bedrooms were personalised and reflected people’s preferences. However, activities were not always delivered as planned, and people were not always informed when timings changed.

Most people we spoke with told us they felt safe and able to approach staff. However, ongoing environmental issues impacted people’s overall experience of safety and comfort.

People described staff as more responsive and approachable, and staff themselves told us morale had improved. This contributed positively to the culture felt by people living in the home. While some people told us they felt supported, our assessment found the service was not always meeting people’s essential care needs reliably. Improvements were not embedded across essential care, medicines management, and environmental safety, people’s experience remained variable and did not consistently reflect the standard of care they should expect. For these reasons, people’s experience of the service requires improvement.