Davies Court

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 22 October 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 3 September – 3 October 2025. We visited the service on 3 September 2025 and reviewed the care and support people received along with their care records and management information. Davies Court is a 'care home’ and provides long term, respite and intermediate care to older people. Some people using the service were living with dementia. Davies Court can accommodate up to 60 people in 4 separate units. On the day of inspection there were 47 people using the service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. We carried out this assessment under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.

There was a learning culture in the care home. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. There were appropriate systems and processes in place to report any concerns about safety. Members of staff confirmed they knew how to report concerns. The provider had developed specific person-centred care plans for each element of people’s care and support. People strengths were identified and goals were set with people. There was good deployment of staff throughout the service and we observed people being supported by members of staff who were kind and caring. Some people told us they felt there were not sufficient members of staff and we shared this with the management team who provided assurances about staff levels and appropriate deployment. Medicines were managed safely and there were systems in place to monitor, review and audit medicine management processes. However, we did identify areas where improvements could be made. These areas included storage of prescribed thickeners for people’s drinks, body maps for pain patches and protocols for ‘as and when’ medication.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Members of staff were kind and caring. They treated people with dignity and respect. People were treated as individuals and supported to maintain their independence. The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Members of staff told us they felt valued by their line managers and they had access to supervisions and support. Some members of staff felt their voice was not always heard; however, the management team had made some progress by listening to concerns and making changes.

People’s care plans were person-centred and reflected their individual care needs. 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. The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. 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.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. In the absence of the registered manager, the service was led by the deputy manager who did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The provider was an inclusive employer who valued diversity in the workforce. The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Improvements to audit processes had been identified and new systems and processes had been put in place. The new systems and processes needed to be embedded and sustained into standard practice. The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.