St Mary's Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We did not see evidence that people were asked what activities they wished to have at the service, and no evidence that people were part of the menu planning for their meal options.

However, we observed people being supported with their care needs in a person-centred manner. Care staff were attentive and understood how people like their care provided,taking into consideration their needs and preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received support from external healthcare professionals when required. Referrals were made to various healthcare teams including District nurses, SALT, GP’s and Falls team.

A staff member told us, “We have great relationships with the GP and District Nurse.”

We observed healthcare professionals visiting people at St Mary’s Residential Home.

The provider generally supplied appropriate information in formats which were tailored to people’s needs. Most of the relatives we spoke with praised the communication of the staff team. One relative told us,“One of the Managers emails or rings to check on her care and to update every month. It’s a regular monthly communication.” However, one relative told us, “There is no communication. I just see how [person] is on the day I visit.” The service supported people’s communication needs, for example menus were displayed in picture form and word form to support people with their meal selection.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. For example, we did not see evidence of resident’s meetings minutes giving people the opportunity to make suggestions.

The leadership team were addressing this, and we saw meetings scheduled for 2026, which would be led by the new manager.

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding opportunities to feed back to the provider. One relative told us, “I had a questionnaire in November. It was really a tick box exercise, but I did add comments to it.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people who had been assessed to be supported with equipment when moving to sit out of their bed or equipment used to enable people to move out of their room and access the service. We found the equipment used was maintained safely to enable people to move around the home and be comfortable.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People’scare plans included information about what mattered to them, such as how they wished to be addressed by staff, for example their first name. All staff had received Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training and understood the importance of treating people with respect.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Future planning including end of life choices were clear and demonstrated involvement with people. For example, people’s preferences and wishes regarding ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) were recorded in care plans.