The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

The King William Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lowes Hill, Ripley, Derbyshire, DE5 3DW 0845 602 2059

Provided and run by:
Ashmere Derbyshire Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

The King William Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 28 people. At the time of the visit, 24 people were living at the service. The service is based over 2 floors, has 4 communal areas and has a lift to access all floors.

Who the service is for

This is a residential service for people living with dementia and physical disabilities.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment from 7 July 2026 to 22 July 2026. This service was previously rated good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

There was a learning culture and feedback from people, relatives and staff was actively encouraged. The home environment was noted to be very clean in all areas. Medicines were managed safely, supported by effective clinical oversight and involvement from health professionals. Staff provided patient and supportive care and encouraged people to make choices and maintain their independence. Staff told us they prioritised spending time with people rather than chatting with colleagues. One staff member said, "It is about giving back, giving people their independence as much as possible. Even if it is end of life." All staff we spoke with told us they would be happy for a friend or relative to live at the home.

Care plans were person-centred, reflected people's preferences and contained clear information about their needs, risks and life histories. People knew how to raise concerns and managers investigated incidents and feedback to identify learning and improvement opportunities. People's communication needs, religious beliefs and personal preferences were understood and respected. The home included dementia-friendly features to support orientation and independence. Staff felt managers had the skills and knowledge to run the home and told us the management team worked well together. Staff also spoke positively about their roles and the relationships they had developed with people and their colleagues. All staff we spoke with were positive about the management in the home. One staff member said," I have never had a manager like them [registered manager], they are incredible."

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

We saw some environmental risks were not always managed effectively for people. Communal areas used by people at an increased risk of falls were not consistently supervised by staff, call bell pull cords were frequently out of reach, and some people were observed standing or mobilising without the equipment or support they required. Some staff and relatives raised concerns about staffing levels, particularly at night. Staff told us there were occasions when staffing numbers may be insufficient to safely evacuate people in an emergency or provide appropriate support if one staff member needed to remain with a person. We also found some prescribed body creams that were out of date and stored unsecured in people's bedrooms. This meant other people could have accessed these medicines, increasing the risk of misuse or inappropriate use. Where concerns were identified during the inspection, including issues relating to expired body creams, the provider responded promptly and either took immediate action or provided us with assurances that a review would be undertaken.

The provider's governance systems included a range of audits and quality assurance processes; however, these had not always been effective in identifying all areas for improvement. The provider was receptive to feedback throughout the inspection and demonstrated a commitment to identifying and addressing areas for improvement.

 

24 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The King William Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for 23 people at the time of the inspection, some of whom were living with dementia. The service can support up to 28 people in one adapted building with a lift to the first floor.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider kept in touch with relatives and discussed visiting options in line with government guidance. Some people had identified essential care givers.

Staff supported one to one activity to happen for people who were isolating in their rooms to reduce the impact of isolation.

Staff competence checks were completed to ensure safe practices in hand hygiene and donning and doffing of PPE. Staff signed to confirm COVID-19 updates shared by the provider have been read.

The provider implemented the regular use of a disinfecting fogging machine throughout the service for enhanced disinfection

9 July 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

The King William Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for 21 people at the time of the inspection, some of whom were living with dementia. The service can support up to 28 people in one adapted building with a lift to the first floor. There are several communal areas for people to use and an accessible outdoor space.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People remained safe at the service and risks about their well-being were assessed, recorded and regularly reviewed. People told us that when they needed assistance, staff responded promptly. People were supported to take their medicines safely. Incidents and accidents were investigated, and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence. The premises were clean, and staff followed infection control procedures.

People’s needs had been assessed, plans developed, and they received care and support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to demonstrate a full understanding of their care needs. People were provided with a nutritious and varied diet and were complimentary about the food and the choices offered. Recruitment procedures for appointing staff were thorough. Staff were safely recruited and received the training and support needed to undertake their role.

Staff always treated people with kindness and respect and were passionate about providing a quality person centred service. People said they felt involved and supported in their care. There was a friendly and welcoming atmosphere for people using the service and people gave positive comments about the staff and care provided.

Staff were responsive to people’s individual needs and were seen to engage well. Activities and entertainment were organised on a regular basis which people said they enjoyed. People, visitors and staff views were listened to and action taken to improve the service for all.

The service was led by clear leadership who conducted quality assurance audits to monitor the running of the service. These systems were in place to continue to drive and improve the level of service. The registered manager was praised by people, their relatives and the staff for their positive and supportive approach. The management team and staff engaged well with other professionals to support the needs of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 16 July 2018). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection, enough improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The King William Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

5 June 2018

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 5 June 2018. The King William Care Home was registered by Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 22 December 2016 following a change in legal entity and this was the first time we had inspected this service.

The King William Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The King William Care Home provides care and support for up to 28 older people, some of who may be living with dementia. The premises had been adapted and consisted of two floors which included bedrooms, a main lounge, garden room, dining room and an activities room. There were 20 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

There was no registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, there was a manager in post who was in the process of applying to become the registered manager.

We found that regular audits by the managers of the service had identified areas of the environment that needed attention to ensure that people’s needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the service. Although the provider had carried out some improvements to the environment such as servicing and repairing equipment and on-going essential repairs such as fixing leaking taps and replacing toilet seats, they had failed to address the areas of concern identified in the environmental audits. During this inspection, we found the same issues in relation to the environment as identified by the audits. For example, we saw that some bedrooms had an unpleasant odour because carpets were stained and worn. In one bedroom there had been a leak and the carpet was wet and this room had a strong odour.

Both sluice rooms were in need of refurbishment. They were not easy to clean and walls and floors were stained. Several toilets needed new flooring, the laundry was not a clean and hygienic environment to wash people’s clothes and windows in many areas of the service had condensation in the pains obscuring peoples view to the outside.

People were safe at the service and staff knew how to protect them from abuse. Managers and staff monitored people’s well-being and took preventative action to keep them safe. There were enough staff on duty to support people and meet their needs. Staff supported people with their medicines and this was done safely. Staff were trained in infection control and wore PPE (personal protective equipment) to reduce the risk of the spread of infection or illness.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. The staff were well-trained and knowledgeable. Staff assisted people with their meals and made sure people had enough to eat and drink. People’s healthcare needs were met and staff referred them to healthcare professionals where necessary. People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice

The staff were caring and kind and had developed good relationships with people using the service. They engaged with people and welcomed their relatives and friends when they visited. Staff respected people and supported them to make choices about their care, support and any individual needs they might have including cultural, religious, and those relating to disability. People told us staff treated them with dignity.

Staff provided people with individualised care that met their needs. Care plans were personalised and written in conjunction with the person themselves and others involved in their care. They included information about people’s life histories, which enabled staff to get to know people and take an interest in their lives. Staff encouraged people to socialise and to join in with activities and events that took part on the premises and provided assistance for them to do this where necessary.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity and information was provided to people in formats that were accessible to them. The service had a complaints procedure and if a person made a complaint they were listened to and their concerns taken seriously.

People were satisfied with the care and support provided. Staff said they liked working at the service because they were well supported by the manager and their peers. People, relatives, and staff had the opportunity to comment on the service through surveys, meetings and one-to-one discussions. Records showed the service worked with other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met.

At this inspection, we found the service to be in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated activities) Regulations 2014. The action we have taken are detailed at the end of this report.