Kingsmead Healthcare

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service maintained patient assessments and ensured staff understood individuals’ current health and care needs. Vulnerable patients were prioritised, with annual health checks offered to those with learning disabilities and reasonable adjustments made to support attendance. A carers register was maintained, and collaboration with an on-site social prescriber helped connect patients to community support.

Care and treatment were regularly reviewed, with attention to well-being and communication preferences. Feedback was positive, with patients feeling involved and understood. Reception staff used digital flags to highlight specific needs, such as interpreter support or extended appointments. The provider had systems to identify previously undiagnosed conditions, and staff referred individuals with social challenges, such as isolation or housing issues, to the social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we reviewed demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked collaboratively across teams to support patients, ensuring assessments were shared so individuals didn’t need to repeat their stories. Staff had access to all necessary information, supported by clear policies and procedures. Systems enabled the safe sharing of information both internally and with external agencies. Regular liaison with community teams, including health visitors and mental health practitioners, supported coordinated care. Referrals to specialist services were well documented, included all required details, and were actively monitored to avoid delays.

The service empowered individuals to manage their health and wellbeing, promoting greater independence, choice, and control. It aimed to support people in leading healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.Staff focused on identifying health risks, including those affecting individuals in the last year of life, those at risk of developing long-term conditions, and people with caring responsibilities. They actively supported national health priorities and initiatives, such as smoking cessation and obesity reduction, to improve overall population health. The service had completed 96% of learning disability and long-term condition reviews for eligible patients (716 patients) between April 2025 and April 2026. In addition, 94% of eligible patients aged 40 to 74 years (117 patients) had received an NHS health check during the same period.

The service held a Spin activity in September 2025 as part of Promoting Active Travel and Community Well-being. Additionally, the service provided weekly clinics led by a dietitian and a heart failure nurse. It also offered vocational rehabilitation through occupational therapy services, supporting patients to develop skills and confidence to return to meaningful activities, including employment where appropriate.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider told us the service was situated in an area where vaccine hesitancy was high. Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, the service did not achieve the World Health Organisation national target of 95% for all five key childhood immunisation indicators. Uptake ranged from a high of 77% to a low of 65%.

Similarly, the national targets of 80% for cervical screening uptake (based on NHS Digital data dated 30 June 2024) for the eligible population aged 25- to 49-year-olds (61%) and 50 to 64 years old (75%) were not met.

The provider shared the service’s cervical screening data up to April 2026, which showed that it had exceeded its target in both screening cohorts. Although the data had not been independently validated and was therefore not directly comparable with nationally published figures, it indicated that the service was on track to achieve its screening targets and had made significant improvements across both cohorts.

The provider had implemented a patient recall process which involved following up with patients who missed appointments and contacting those with vaccine hesitancy to address their concerns. Additionally, administrative staff sent text messages containing information and a self-booking link to encourage participation.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision-making. Consent was documented, and clinicians supported patients in making informed decisions. Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were carried out and recorded.

However, a review of three patients identified as having a DNACPR decision showed that only one patient had a completed DNACPR form in place. The remaining two patients had no DNACPR form and no documented discussion recorded in their clinical records.