Kingswood House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.



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’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.



People’s care was planned to meet their individual needs when they moved into the service, and staff understood their needs, preferences, and routines in line with care plans. A relative said, “Staff definitely know [Person name] well and make sure things are done in a way they like.”



People told us they were not always involved in reviewing their care, and records did not consistently reflect their input. This meant they were not always fully involved in decisions about their care. Relatives had been involved in care reviews when their family member’s needs changed. While this had not impacted people, record-keeping and documentation needed to be strengthened.



Staff knew people well; however, opportunities for person-centred care and meaningful engagement were sometimes missed, with a greater focus on task-based care. Activities were mainly provided for those who chose to participate. One person told us, “I do get a bit bored, there isn’t anything really for me. I like to go out and about for walks.” A relative said, [Person name] enjoys watching the tv [in bed]; leaves the room door open so they can see what's happening outside.” While activities were evident in communal areas, it was unclear how much engagement was offered to those who remained in their rooms and may be at risk of isolation.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.



Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual health needs and were aware of the professionals involved in their ongoing care. They worked collaboratively with a range of healthcare professionals, to promote coordinated and consistent support.



Relatives felt their family members were well cared for and said staff helped them feel comfortable during GP visits. One relative said, “[Person name] has goes to hospital regularly for check-ups and hospital transport is arranged.” Another said, “Good relationship and contact with the GP and district nurse.”



Care plans provided clear guidance on annual health checks and condition-specific monitoring, helping staff deliver timely and appropriate healthcare. This supported continuity between services and ensured coordinated, integrated care that met people’s needs and promoted positive outcomes.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.



People’s communication needs were assessed on admission and recorded in care plans; however, these were not always reviewed. The registered manager told us one person required written information in large print, but information displayed within the service was not consistently provided in this format.



People were not always supported to make informed choices in ways they could understand. Accessible formats such as activity programmes, picture menus, flash cards or ‘show plates’ were not routinely used. Although staff said these had been discussed with the registered manager and provider, no action had been taken.



Relatives felt communication was generally satisfactory, stating they were kept informed and could approach staff for information when needed. While people and relatives were confident that information was managed safely, we observed occasions where staff left handheld devices unattended and discussed a person’s care needs in the dining room, compromising confidentiality. The registered manager assured us that handheld devices were secure and that confidentiality would be reinforced with staff.

The provider did not always act on feedback and ideas from people. Complaints procedure enabled people to raise concerns about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their daily care needs or tell them what had changed as a result.



People said they felt listened to and valued. Relatives reported they were kept informed of changes to their family member’s care needs and involved in best interest meetings when required. Care was reviewed regularly; however, records did not always reflect the involvement or contributions of people and their relatives.



The service held regular residents’ meetings to gather people’s views. A survey for residents, relatives, and staff was carried out when the provider was registered, and feedback was mostly positive. One relative told us they had completed a survey but were unsure if any feedback had been shared. No action plan had been developed or shared with people, relatives, or staff. Those we spoke with reported little evidence that these improvements had been progressed.



People and relatives knew how to raise a concern. Their comments included, “I have been here a while and never had a complaint yet” and “No complaints but would speak with the staff on duty if there was a problem.” The registered manager was open and responded promptly to concerns. They told us there were no complaints received about the care home. They also showed a compliments folder containing emails, letters, and cards; however, some were not dated when received, making it difficult to determine when the feedback was given.

The provider did not consistently make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.



Pre-admission assessments were completed to understand people’s needs before they moved in, allowing equipment, such as mobility aids or pressure-relieving mattresses, to be arranged in advance. However, the design and layout of the home did not always promote wellbeing or accessibility, particularly for people living with dementia to move around safely and appropriate signage. The physical barriers meant some individuals with mobility needs could not access all areas, including the garden and outdoor spaces.



People had access to healthcare and specialist services as required. Staff and leaders worked effectively with the GP practice and district nursing team, with care instructions and necessary equipment clearly documented to support safe care delivery.



Staff knew which relatives needed to be informed about appointments so they could attend or provide support. They also understood how to access emergency and out-of-hours medical advice when needed.



Staff completed training in equality and diversity, helping them understand the importance of recognising and addressing inequalities, and reducing potential barriers people may experience

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.



People and relatives described the environment as “nice.” However, there was limited evidence that the décor and furnishings had been designed with the needs and interests of people living with dementia in mind. One relative described the care home as “Place is ok nothing special to be honest.”



There was limited evidence that environmental barriers had been fully identified or addressed to support positive outcomes. For example, a mix of patterned and textured floor coverings, along with a lack of dementia-friendly signage, which could reduce people’s ability, especially for those living with dementia, to navigate the environment independently and safely.



Activities were mainly group-based as some people spent most of their time in a lounge, limiting opportunity to provide individuals with activities of interests to them. We observed that the lunchtime experience was not consistently enjoyable. Tables were not set with basic items such as tablecloths, placemats, cutlery, or condiments, and staff provided these only on request. This reduced the quality and positive dining experience, limiting people’s enjoyment.



One person said they liked walking but had limited access to the garden. A relative highlighted barriers included a lack of seating and safety concerns. Restricted access to outdoor spaces limited opportunities for people to enjoy the outdoors and benefit their wellbeing. The lack of progress on improvements identified in the latest survey has also reduced confidence in the provider and contributed to a continued poor experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.



At the time of the assessment, no one using the service was receiving end‑of‑life care.

Staff told us they felt confident supporting people at the end of life and understood how to access guidance and support from external professionals when needed.



Arrangements in place ensured people could express their preferences in advance, helping their wishes to be understood and followed if their needs changed. Care plans provided guidance for staff on how to support people during emergencies or sudden illness, enabling a prompt, consistent response while maintaining dignity, comfort, and individual preferences.



One relative said, “[Person name] had made decision about their end-of-life care; they told staff they want to stay here and not to go to hospital” and confirmed respective documents were completed with the GP.