King Street - Care Home Physical Disabilities

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last rated inspection, we rated this key question Inadequate. At this inspection the rating has changed to Requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. However, they did not always respect their privacy and dignity.

There were inconsistencies in how privacy and dignity were maintained, particularly during busy periods. One person told us, “I have to be hoisted when I go to the toilet and when staff are busy they can sometimes leave the door slightly open which leaves me on display, I would like them to close it fully.” We raised this with the interim manager, who responded promptly and demonstrated an understanding of the concern.

Immediate assurances were provided in which staff would be reminded of the importance of always maintaining people’s privacy, this would be reinforced through staff supervision and practice observations. The provider recognised the need to strengthen a more consistently person-centred culture, ensuring all staff promote dignity, respect and compassionate care at all times.

Feedback from people and relatives was mostly positive, highlighting the caring nature of the staff team and the trusting relationships that had been developed over time. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of choice and independence, ensuring people felt valued and respected in their daily lives. Other people commented, “Yes, I am treated with dignity and respect by the staff” and “The staff treat me with dignity and respect and help me wash, they’re lovely”.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider did not consistently ensure people were treated as individuals, and this required improvement. Opportunities for people to access the community, try new experiences, attend education such as college, or engage in meaningful hobbies aligned with their interests and aspirations were extremely limited.

Where activities or outings were arranged, these were often delivered as group-based events, which restricted people’s autonomy and did not always reflect individual preferences or goals. Care records did not consistently demonstrate how people’s personal interests, ambitions or life histories were used to shape meaningful and person-centred opportunities. This meant people were not always supported to pursue their own aspirations or develop independence in a way that reflected their identity and choices. A more individualised and proactive approach was needed to ensure people were supported to live fulfilling lives, with greater choice, control and access to opportunities that mattered to them.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always supported to maintain their independence or exercise choice and control over their daily lives. Whilst some choices were offered, people’s opportunities to pursue personal goals and preferred activities were limited due to insufficient numbers of staff trained and able to drive the service’s transport. This had a direct impact on individuals’ routines and aspirations. For example, one person who attended college was frequently unable to attend their course because the provider could not consistently arrange transport. This meant they were at risk of falling behind and not achieving their educational goals.

Activities within the service were often planned in small groups to accommodate staffing levels and the limited number of staff authorised to drive, which restricted people’s access to community opportunities and reduced flexibility in how they spent their time. A person told us, “We do have trips out, but the minibuses have not been working for a while, although one is available again. Usually go out in groups on the minibus, it can take three wheelchairs and two staff, and we normally go to a pub, the zoo or to Leicester shopping”. As a result, people were not always able to make meaningful choices about how they wished to live their lives, and their independence was therefore compromised.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People’s immediate needs were not always responded to promptly, particularly during periods of increased demand. People told us they sometimes had to wait for support at busy times, such as during morning routines or during shift handovers, which led to frustration and impacted their overall experience. Observations and feedback indicated that staff were often task-focused and under pressure, reducing their ability to respond consistently in a timely and person-centred way. One person told us, “I think the staffing levels are ok but feel there could be a few more. When the shift changes at 2pm it can be difficult to get staff to attend at this time, this can be an issue if I need the toilet for example. But overall staff do a fantastic job.”

Due to an increased number of new staff, deployment was also impacted, as some staff required additional oversight, guidance and competency development before working independently. This placed further pressure on experienced staff and reduced overall responsiveness. The management team were committed to ensuring new staff were inducted safely and supported to develop the necessary skills and competencies; however, they acknowledged that during this period this had an impact on staffing effectiveness and timely responsiveness. As a result, there were occasions where people experienced delays in receiving support, demonstrating that further improvements were needed to ensure people’s immediate needs were consistently met.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff did not consistently feel confident that their feedback would lead to meaningful change.

Staff generally spoke positively about the support they received from the management team and many told us they felt valued in their roles. Systems such as supervision, team meetings and opportunities to raise concerns were in place. Recent improvements to supervision arrangements were beginning to provide more structure and clarity, although these changes were still embedding and had not yet resulted in consistently strong oversight across the service.

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture, and staff felt increasingly able to share feedback and contribute to improvements. However, this approach was not yet fully established, and staff did not always feel confident that their input would lead to meaningful change. As a result, opportunities to strengthen morale, support retention and drive consistently safe, effective care were not always maximised.