Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 26 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: From 7 to27 January 2026.St Lawrence Residential Care Home provides a warm and friendly environment where many people and their relatives described kind, compassionate staff who “try their best” and make the service feel “homely”. People told us they felt safe, and observations showed respectful, caring interactions where staff offered choices, reassurance and encouragement.Although people experienced kind day-to-day care, the assessment identified inconsistent systems and oversight, leading to variable experiences across the home. These gaps affected safety, effectiveness, outcomes, and involvement for people and their families.Caring practice remained a strength. Staff treated people with dignity and compassion.Staff were visible, and leaders were described as approachable and hands on.However, shortfalls in governance, communication and care planning meant that not all people experienced consistently good outcomes. Medicines systems required improvement, including recording gaps, inconsistent documentation and issues with time specific medicines. While improvements had begun, these had not yet been fully embedded.Activity provision was inconsistent and often limited, with long periods of little structured engagement. This meant some people did not receive meaningful stimulation throughout the day. Environmental issues also required attention, including worn furniture, unsecured wardrobes and items incorrectly stored in bathrooms, which increased risks and affected people’s dignity and independence. Some improvements had begun following a recent fire risk assessment, but these were not yet fully completed.Staffing levels met assessed need overall, and modelling showed sufficient hours in place. The workforce felt supported by new leadership, and there was evidence of a developing learning culture; staff reported they were listened to and felt able to raise concerns.However, governance systems were not yet effective or reliable, and quality assurance processes did not provide the level of oversightrequiredto ensure consistent safe care. Audits did not always result in clear, recorded action, and improvements relied heavily on the visibility and goodwill of individual leaders rather than embedded systems.The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation toconsent to care and treatment, and staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to medicines management, infection prevention and control, and governance, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.