Kingswood House

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.



This is the first assessment for this service since the change of provider registered in September 2025. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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. Staff did not always respect people’s privacy and dignity. For example, the communal toilet door did not fully close, and the lock had been removed to reduce the risk of people being unable to unlock it. Discussion with the registered manager confirmed that no alternative solution had been considered, resulting in people’s dignity being compromised.



We observed staff worked as a team in a coordinated way, however, on occasions, staff spoke across the communal lounge to one another about the supporting a person to use the toilet. Despite this, people and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People told us staff knock before entering their room. However, one person told us, “I put the waste paper basket and some shoes by my door, when staff come in it makes a noise, I don’t like people coming in when I am asleep, so this wakes me up and I know someone is in my room.” One relative, said, “Happy with the care, [Person name] is clean and never any concerns about their clothes, nails and hair.”



Staff and leaders treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect, and we observed positive interactions between staff and people. A visiting health professional told us, “Staff are always happy to see you and expecting you.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.



People told us staff understood what mattered to them and they were able to make meaningful choices about their daily lives. One person told us staff treated them with respect. A relative said, “[Staff] treat [Person name] well; they seem content and now sits in the lounge and likes to people watch and is not one for joining in with activities.” Another relative told us, “Staff know [Person name] likes, dislikes and is generally well looked after.” This showed individual preferences were respected and their dignity and emotional wellbeing was promoted.



People’s care records included individual preferences, daily routines, hobbies and what mattered to them including family. Cultural and spiritual needs were respected. People and relatives did not express a need for additional support to practise their faith. The registered manager told us they had links with a local church should anyone wish to access this.



We observed staff being kind and communicating in a respectful way, which helped people feel valued and understood. For instance, we saw positive interaction by the activity staff and the senior staff administering medicines, both friendly and used people’s preferred names. Staff spoke about people in a warm and respectful way and demonstrated good knowledge of individual personalities, likes and dislikes.

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.



Care plans contained person-centred information enabling staff to promote individual choices and independence. However, there was limited evidence to show the individual or their relative had been consulted in decisions made about their care. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individuals and promoted choice where possible, for example in how people chose to spend their time.



Although staff gave people choices in day-to-day interactions, which were positive and warm, there were still systemic issues which needed to be fully resolved. Staff placed aprons on people irrespective of whether they wanted one or not. On the first day of inspection visit the menu options were not displayed anywhere. Picture menus were not available to support people living with dementia to make informed choices about their meals. The following day, menus options were written on the whiteboard. We observed staff did not consistently use visual aids, such as show plates, or clearly describe the contents of the meal being served.



People were unable to go out into the garden without assistance. One person told us they would prefer to go out but felt unable to do so. They added, “When I am walking around, I check people’s rooms. I don’t go in, just look as I am going past, to make sure no one has fallen on the floor.” This indicates limited opportunities for this person to engage in preferred activities and a potential reliance on individuals to monitor others, which is not appropriate.



Staff supported people to make choices about their clothing and how they spent their time, promoting independence and choice. We observed the activity staff facilitating activities in the lounge, which people enjoyed. Some people spent time with their visitors. Relatives were made to feel welcome and could visit anytime.A relative said, “Staff do try to encourage [Person name] to sit up or get out of bed, but they declines, as they have their marbles.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff acted to minimise any concern or distress, however, they did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment.



Staff knew the people they cared for well and recognised and responded when people become upset or distressed. Staff had their breaks in the dining room enabling them to respond promptly to people’s needs. However, feedback from one relative presented a different experience. They told us “[Person name] gets frustrated; doesn't always get taken to the toilet, apparently [Person name] doesn't give staff enough time to respond. I've complained about this; can't say it's got any better.”



We also observed staff worked well together to respond to people’s individual care needs and requests for assistance. Staff communicated and shared information between them which was effective in ensuring people’s needs were responded to in a timely manner.



Relatives were confident staff would inform them promptly when their family member’s health was of concern. One relative said, “[Registered Manager] is great, she knows [Person name] and us, and keeps us up to date with whatever is going on with them.”

The provider did not always promote or prioritise staff wellbeing. While staff felt supported by the registered manager enabling them to deliver person-centred care, this was not consistently reflected at provider level.



Staff told us they enjoyed their role but felt morale fluctuated. There was limited additional confidential employee support for advice or services such as counselling and bereavement support. The registered manager told us when staff needed additional support they advised staff to speak with their GP or referred them to MIND for support.



Apart from informal praise and thanks from the registered manager, there was limited formal recognition or reward from the provider. Staff consistently reported a lack of adequate staff facilities, meaning they took their paid breaks in the dining room so they could remain available to respond to people’s needs.



Staff spoke about the provider’s proposed new ways of working, which may negatively impact those working set day or night shifts, as well as staff with caring responsibilities. The registered manager acknowledged these concerns, including the potential impact on the delivery of safe care, and were working with both the provider and staff to manage these issues.



Staff received updated training, but their competence was not always assessed to ensure safe practice. Out-of-hours support was provided by the registered manager and senior staff. Teamwork was described as positive, with staff feeling supported, valued, and able to rely on one another. Regular supervisions, appraisals, and meetings provided updates and opportunities for sharing information, updates and learning if any.