Kingswood House

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.



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 the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them, however this was not always documented.



People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the home and planning their care. Where appropriate, relatives and relevant professionals were involved to ensure assessments were accurate and reflected people’s current needs and taking account of the Equality Act.



Care plans contained clear guidance to meet people’s needs and had information enabling staff to recognise anxiety and distress and follow best practice and de-escalation strategies.



People and relatives involvement in care plan reviews was mixed. Some relatives described discussions with the registered manager when care needs had changed, but not all had seen a copy of the care plan. The provider was planning to introduce a new digital system to better capture these discussions and improve access to care plans for people and their relatives.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care and treatment were not always delivered in line with best practice and clinical guidance.



Records showed evidence-based tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Waterlow score for pressure ulcers, embedded in the digital care system were regularly reviewed.



People’s dietary needs had been assessed and reflected in their care plan. Kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and prepared suitable meals. Staff told us there had been changes in food ordering system, and on some occasions meal options had been changed accordingly with no impact on people.



People’s weights were monitored regularly, so action could be taken when weight loss was identified including referrals made to professionals such as a dietitian where needed.



People’s view about the quality and choice of meals was mixed. Comments ranged from “Food is excellent,” to “Its alright.” Most relatives felt their family member ate well and the meals provided were satisfactory. However, one relative commented that the food quality had recently declined, which they believed had contributed to their family member eating less.



During lunchtime, we saw staff encouraging people to eat and provided support where needed. Most people did not finish their meals, and one person did not eat their main course but ate all of their dessert when it was offered. There were missed opportunities to promote choice and enhance the dining experience. For example, drinks were served in plastic cups for all people, and it was unclear whether background music reflected people’s preferences or staff choice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.



People were encouraged and supported by staff to access health care services as needed and records confirmed advice was sought and referrals made when needed.Relatives had no concerns about accessing health care support. One relative told us the registered manager ensured their family member had access to the equipment they needed, to support their independence, mobility and safety.



Staff told us communication among staff and with health professionals was good. We observed staff supporting a visiting health professional to obtain a blood sample from a person, which was carried out in a supportive and sensitive manner. The health professional commented that staff knew the person well and provided reassurance and support helping to minimise any distress during the procedure.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to take part in meaningful indoor activities to support their physical and mental wellbeing. One person told us the doors were not always open for them to spend time outdoors. Opportunities to use outdoor space were limited due to accessibility, a lack of seating and shaded areas to protect people from direct sunlight.



People were supported to live healthier lives. Meals included options suitable for specific needs, such as low-sugar meals for people with diabetes, fortified food for those at risk of weight loss, and modified textures for those with swallowing difficulties. Staff also encouraged regular fluid intake, particularly during warmer weather.



People were supported to attend routine health screenings, vaccinations, and outpatient appointments. One relative told us, “[Person name] seen the optician and has new glasses, which they wear.” Relatives reported that staff kept them informed when their family member was unwell.



Staff monitored people’s overall wellbeing, including changes in mood, mobility, and appetite, and took appropriate action when concerns were identified. Risks and care plans were reviewed regularly to reflect current needs and required support.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and updated following changes in needs or health.For example, the digital care system was used to track key aspects of care including repositioning charts, catheter care including urine output and fluid charts allowing staff to promptly identify and address any issues.



Staff and leaders mostly worked towards achieving positive and consistent outcomes that met both clinical standards and people’s expectations. However, there were some gaps in practice. For example, when ‘as required’ medicines such as pain relief or laxatives were given, staff did not always record their effectiveness. Although food and fluid intake was documented, there was limited evidence of how this information was used to monitor or manage health concerns. While this had not impacted people, record-keeping and documentation needed to be strengthened



Relatives told us staff kept them inform and updated when there were health concerns. One relative had concerns about skin damage, and said, “It's better now as [Person name’s] skin integrity is better, staff do apply creams more regularly.” Another relative told us their family member had no bed sores or infections.