St Edith's Court

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 22 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

St. Edith’s Court is a residential care home providing personal care without nursing for up to 39 people. At the time of inspection 37 people were using the service. The service is set over two floors in the local community with access to a large, landscaped garden.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people and people living with dementia.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment from the 9 July until the 15 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People consistently told us they were happy and felt safe living at the service. People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. New staff underwent a thorough recruitment process and a full induction. Staff received training appropriate to their role and were actively encouraged to develop themselves and further their careers. Staff told us they had been supported to complete nationally recognised training courses. People were given their medicines as prescribed and were safeguarded from the risk of abuse by staff who understood their responsibilities to report concerns. Records we saw showed the registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and worked with them to ensure people were safe.

Safeguarding was a topic for discussion for staff in team meetings and supervision, with lessons learned and reflective practice used to improve outcomes for people where needed. One member of staff told us, “If someone was at risk of abuse, I would escalate this to the local authority or CQC.”

Risk assessments were in place to help staff mitigate risks of harm to people whilst maintaining their independence. People where needed, wore pendent alarms which meant they could feel safe in the knowledge they could alert staff if they needed support no matter where they were in the building or gardens.

The environment was clean and well maintained. The provider employed a maintenance person to manage the day-to-day repairs and safety monitoring of the building and equipment used. Where needed, external contractors were employed, for example, the service was undergoing a major refurbishment of replacing windows and external doors. Following a recent fire risk assessment, we saw works recommended had been promptly addressed.

Care was planned in a person-centred way, with care plans demonstrating people’s voice on how they wished to be supported. Before people came to the service, either on respite or permanently a full assessment was completed to ensure staff had all the information, they needed to support people safely. The service employed a head chef and kitchen staff who liaised with people and staff to understand their dietary and hydration requirements. People were referred to speech and language therapist for assessments when issues were identified, and specialist diets were provided when needed. Menus were discussed and planned with people and feedback from them was obtained to continual improve people’s dining experience. One person told us, “If I don’t like what’s on the menu, I get given a choice, but I always take what’s on the menu, its lovely.”

Staff had systems in place to monitor people’s health needs. For example, recording how much people ate and drank when needed, or monitoring signs of weight loss, infection and skin integrity. When needed, the district nurse visited the service to provide support, advice and treatment. The service also had regular reviews from their GP practice and frailty nurse. People told us when required staff arranged appointments for them and if specialist reviews were needed at hospitals staff arranged this for them. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff are very good at looking after people’s wellbeing and health needs. Staff are approachable and follow instructions given.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Where conditions of DoLS were in place this was care planned and followed up by the registered manager to ensure people’s conditions were met.

The provider and registered manager promoted equality in experience and outcome for people. The registered manager had systems in place to measure and monitor outcomes for people, including holding regular meetings with people and relatives, and undertaking regular surveys. We saw from a recent survey the service had a very high response rate from relatives and people living at the service, with 26 people and 32 relatives responding. The service received an overall satisfaction rating of 92.3% and received a 100% satisfaction for people feeling safe and secure and being shown kindness, dignity and respect at the service.

The registered manager had systems in place to keep oversight of the service. This was achieved through numerous audits and the digital systems they had in place to monitor care delivery. Staff communicated well together with handovers and multidisciplinary team meetings every day to ensure all staff working at the service had an opportunity to give feedback and were kept informed of important information they needed to know to keep the service running safely for people. The registered manager held monthly staff meetings with care staff and there was a structure in place for staff to receive supervision to discuss their concerns and development needs. Additional meetings were arranged when needed in the form of workshops to provide learning opportunities to staff and reflective practice was used to develop staff skills.

Staff shared the registered managers and providers vision to provide positive outcomes for people. One member of staff said, “We want people to feel like this is their home and we as staff are coming into their home rather than this being our place of work.” A visiting healthcare professional told us, “If I had a relative that needed care, this is the home I would like them to come to.”