- Care home
St Marks Court
Assessment report published 3 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 24 September 2026 to 16 October 2026.
St Marks Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 60 people, including people living with dementia and people with physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment, 48 people were living at the service. We carried out this assessment in response to concerns about staffing levels and how staff were deployed across the service.
People received safe, effective and person-centred care. Staff understood people’s individual needs and risks, and care plans were generally detailed and personalised. Staff respected people’s choices and preferences. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals and referred people for specialist support when their needs changed.
People and relatives were mostly positive about the care provided. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to maintain relationships, follow their interests and access their communities. Staff adapted their approach to people’s communication needs and supported people to make choices about their daily lives.
The service had improved since our previous assessment. Leadership was more stable and visible, and the environment was cleaner and better presented. Leaders reviewed staffing arrangements against people’s assessed needs and staff rotas, and actively managed short-notice gaps. We found staffing hours exceeded the provider’s calculated requirements.
We found no evidence that staffing levels regularly prevented people from receiving the care and support they needed. However, leaders needed to continue monitoring how staff were deployed, the mix of staff skills and continuity of care where several people required support at the same time.
Leaders had established local, regional and provider-level systems to monitor the quality and safety of care. These systems identified many of the issues found during our assessment and set out actions for improvement. However, the provider did not always demonstrate that improvements were effective and sustained. Medicines management required improvement. Some records about people’s care, their ability to make decisions and the support they would need in an emergency were inaccurate, inconsistent or incomplete. Activity provision and recording also became less consistent during a vacancy, although people continued to have opportunities for meaningful engagement.
Overall, the service had made clear improvements and people generally received personalised and compassionate care. The main areas for further improvement related to medicines management, record accuracy and ensuring actions identified through governance systems were implemented effectively and improvements sustained.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives were mostly positive about their experience of care at St Marks Court. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and understood their routines, preferences and communication needs. They adapted how they communicated to help people understand information and make choices.
People had choices about their personal care, daily routines, food and drink and family contact. Staff supported people to maintain relationships, follow their faith and access the community. People recently had fewer opportunities for organised activities during a vacancy in the activities team. Staff continued to provide activities, but these were less consistent during this period. One relative told us, “Staff asked about their previous interests and hobbies and made sure staff mentioned these topics to encourage interaction.”
Staff involved people and those important to them in decisions about their care. People could share their views through meetings, surveys and complaints. Staff used advocacy to support people whose voices might otherwise be less easily heard. One relative told us, “I am consulted at the periodic reviews of my relative’s care, and am always aware of recommendations for change.”
People generally received support when they needed it. We found no evidence that staffing levels routinely prevented people from receiving care that met their assessed needs. Leaders continued to monitor staff allocation, skill mix and continuity of care. Overall, people experienced personalised and compassionate care. One person told us, “Staff will always do their best for you.”