- Care home
King Edward House
Assessment report published 22 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
King Edward House is a care home. The service is registered for 6 people. There were 5 people living at the service at the time of the inspection. Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity personal care. For example, help with tasks related to personal hygiene, going to the toilet and eating. CQC only inspects where people receive a regulated activity. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
People lived in a large ordinary house set in a residential village location. The house had an open plan kitchen, shared lounges and a garden to the rear. There were bedrooms upstairs and down.
Who the service is for
The service supports people with a learning disability and autistic people. Most of the people living at the service were also older people. The service is also registered to support people with dementia, mental health, physical disability and sensory impairment.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 7 July 2026 to 14 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.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) guidance to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was being provided in line with this guidance and people were being supported to lead positive and dignified lives.
There were systems and processes in place to support staff to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify signs of possible abuse and how to report concerns if they arose. When there were incidents and accidents there were systems in place to ensure incidents were recorded and reported. Action was taken following incidents to reduce the risk to people and ensure people’s care plans were updated. Medical attention was also sought when required, for example, when one person fell and bumped their head.
There were enough staff to support people. Staff knew people well and understood their needs, preferences and risks. They also had the guidance they needed to know how to support people. For example, where people were at risk from choking there was information in their care plan about how to reduce the risk and what to do if the person choked.
Staff had the training they needed to ensure their skills were up to date. Where appropriate their competency was checked to ensure they had sufficient skill levels to support people safely. There were appropriate recruitment procedures in place to ensure checks were completed before staff started in post. For example, checks on employment references and identification.
People received good support with their medicines as needed. People received their medicines as prescribed where they needed support from staff. Medicines records were up to date and accurate and medicines were stored correctly.
Most people had lived at the service for a significant period of time. However, when new people did move in, they were invited to visit before hand to meet people and get to know each other. This gave people the opportunity to make sure they were compatible and comfortable before a new person moved in. People’s needs were assessed prior to moving in so staff could plan how they were going to support the person. This included asking people about any equality needs as well as needs relating to health and wellbeing.
Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing so they could identify any possible concerns and take action as necessary. For example, staff noted where one person had not drunk much fluid on one day and took time to encourage them to do so, to stay hydrated.
The environment was safe for people, although there were some areas which needed updating. For example, one carpet was becoming worn. However, this was booked to be replaced when people were away on an up-and-coming holiday.
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. No one in receipt of personal care was subject to DoLS. However, where people were subject to DoLS, 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.
The registered manager oversaw this service and another service in the same village and was supported by a deputy manager at King Edwards House. Both the registered manager and the deputy manager attended learning events such as local forums and webinars, which helped them to continually assess and improve how people were being supported. For example, they reviewed people’s care plans after attending an event on oral care. The deputy manager told us, “I love it here. I am learning so much, I learn and then I share it with the staff.”
People's experience of this service
During the inspection visit we spoke with the people who live at the service. We also spent time with them observing their support and day to day life.
People told us they were happy with the support they received. They were comfortable in their home. There was a homely feel to the service and a natural ebb and flow of activity. People went in and out of the kitchen fetching drinks when they wanted to do so and offered each other drinks as it was a hot day. One person was supported by staff to prepare vegetables for lunch. Another person brought their washing downstairs, and staff helped them load the washing machine. A third person set the table for lunch. One person told me, “We set the tables and washing up and drying and putting things away.”
Staff and people all sat together around a family sized dinner table and ate lunch. People had decided what to have for lunch earlier that day. After lunch people discussed and agreed what they wanted to eat later for dinner. People were offered choices throughout the day. Staff recognised that people had the right to make choices and had the capacity to do so. People, who were not subject to DoLs, were able to come and go as they pleased at the service. However, people chose not to do so as they had grown older and needed more support. Staff supported people to go out on a regular basis and people told us they were happy about this. Staff told us routine was important to people, and this was reflected in what people told us about their activities and where they liked to go.
People chatted to each other and, while we were there, were talking excitedly about their holiday plans. Staff regularly checked with people to see if they wanted any support. Staff knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported. For example, some people liked to spend more time alone whereas other people preferred company. Staff understood where privacy was important to people. Staff also understood where people needed emotional support. One person had passed away who had lived at the service for a long time, staff supported people to speak about their feelings and shared picture of the person. People were supported to attend the funeral if they wanted to do so. One person said, “I like living here, it’s really nice.”