St Giles Charity Estates

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 15 April 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

This assessment took place between 23 February and 03 March 2026 and included site visits on 23 and 24 February 2026. St Giles Charity Estates is a care home (without nursing) providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adult over 65 yrs and physical disabilities. The service can accommodate up to 20 people. At the time of the assessment, 18 people were living at the service.

This was a routine assessment of the service. The assessment included observations of care, speaking with people and relatives, interviews with staff and managers, and a review of care records, policies and monitoring systems.

The service provided care in a supportive, structured and person-centred environment. There were effective systems in place across most areas to promote people’s safety, health and wellbeing. Staff worked well with healthcare professionals, understood people’s needs and delivered care that was respectful, responsive and focused on maintaining independence. The environment was clean, well maintained and supported people to move around safely. Leadership was visible and approachable, with a positive culture that encouraged openness, learning and continuous improvement.

There were strong arrangements for safeguarding, incident reporting and learning, and staff demonstrated good awareness of their roles and responsibilities. Staffing levels were sufficient, staff were appropriately trained and supported, and there was effective teamwork and communication. People’s needs were assessed and reviewed regularly, and care plans were generally detailed and person-centred. The provider worked well in partnership with external professionals to support positive outcomes for people.

However, some systems and processes were not always followed consistently. There were occasions where risks were not identified or acted on as promptly as they could have been, including in relation to environmental safety and aspects of clinical oversight. In addition, some records did not always contain complete or sufficiently detailed information to guide staff consistently. While action was taken quickly when issues were identified during the inspection, this indicated that existing monitoring and audit systems had not always been fully effective in identifying these concerns in a timely way.

Overall, the service demonstrated many positive features and a clear commitment to providing safe, effective and person-centred care. Improvements were needed to strengthen consistency in practice and ensure governance systems were fully effective in identifying and addressing risks promptly.