- Care home
King Street - Care Home Physical Disabilities
Assessment report published 19 December 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of inspection: 8 October to 13 October 2025. The inspection was prompted due to concerns received about safe care and treatment and a lack of effective management oversight. This included commissioning agencies review of the service. We undertook a comprehensive inspection.
King Street, Care Home Physical Disabilities provide accommodation for people requiring nursing or personal care. The building is purpose built with ensuite rooms, including various communal spaces which comprise of multiple lounges, kitchens and dining areas, a games room, a gym space and bathroom facilities. The service provides support to autistic people and to people with learning and physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements 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 identified under the key questions safe, caring, responsive and well led the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, medicine optimisation, safe and effective staffing, person centred care, dignity and respect and good governance.
Risk management in relation to how people’s individual emotional and behavioural needs and acute health conditions were assessed, planned for and mitigated were not sufficiently robust and at times meant people were not safe from harm. Staff lacked training, skills, knowledge and competencies to support people effectively to manage distressed behaviours and specific health care tasks. Staffing arrangements and deployment meant people did not have their needs responded to in a timely manner, impacting peoples dignity. Safeguarding processes were not always followed, and incidents were not managed or reported in line with the provider’s policy.
Leaders of the service did not have sufficient oversight of people's assessed needs to ensure these were delivered safely or effectively. Management of incidents was poor and did not lead to a culture of learning and improvement. The culture of the service was impacted through organisational change, poor leadership and lack of effective communication.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
We received mixed feedback from people regarding the care and support they received. Comments included: “I moved here in 2002 and I love it. I get on with the staff and have a friend”, “To make things better they need to cheer the place up, I like it here. I am not worried or scared” and “They need more staff, they use a lot of agency staff, we have requested more permanent staff in resident meetings”.
Relatives expressed concerns around the management and environment. One relative said, “I don’t know who the manager is because there are so many changes” and added “We want maintenance back and they need a gardener and a window cleaner. The place is looking tired.” Another family member told us, “My relative has lived here for 16 years and its standards had gone down. There hasn’t been consistent management for a long time. The service needs to attract more consistent staff. I would rate it as a 5 out of 10”. However, one relative did praise the care provided and said, “They [staff] care well for our family member.”
Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This approach showed most staff knew people well; however, we observed, staff lacked specific skills to ensure they could communicate with people in their preferred way and support people effectively when they became distressed. Therefore, we could not be assured that all people receiving this service were enabled to share their feedback in a meaningful way.
Additionally, we observed people who could not verbalise their needs were not always receiving timely dignified support. We have described this further in the report