King Edward House

People lived in a large ordinary house set in a residential village location. The house had an open plan kitchen, shared lounges and a garden to the rear. There were bedrooms upstairs and down.

Who the service is for

The service supports people with a learning disability and autistic people. Most of the people living at the service were also older people. The service is also registered to support people with dementia, mental health, physical disability and sensory impairment.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 7 July 2026 to 14 July 2026. This service was previously rated as 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.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) guidance to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was being provided in line with this guidance and people were being supported to lead positive and dignified lives.

There were systems and processes in place to support staff to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify signs of possible abuse and how to report concerns if they arose. When there were incidents and accidents there were systems in place to ensure incidents were recorded and reported. Action was taken following incidents to reduce the risk to people and ensure people’s care plans were updated. Medical attention was also sought when required, for example, when one person fell and bumped their head.

There were enough staff to support people. Staff knew people well and understood their needs, preferences and risks. They also had the guidance they needed to know how to support people. For example, where people were at risk from choking there was information in their care plan about how to reduce the risk and what to do if the person choked.

Staff had the training they needed to ensure their skills were up to date. Where appropriate their competency was checked to ensure they had sufficient skill levels to support people safely. There were appropriate recruitment procedures in place to ensure checks were completed before staff started in post. For example, checks on employment references and identification.

People received good support with their medicines as needed. People received their medicines as prescribed where they needed support from staff. Medicines records were up to date and accurate and medicines were stored correctly.

Most people had lived at the service for a significant period of time. However, when new people did move in, they were invited to visit before hand to meet people and get to know each other. This gave people the opportunity to make sure they were compatible and comfortable before a new person moved in. People’s needs were assessed prior to moving in so staff could plan how they were going to support the person. This included asking people about any equality needs as well as needs relating to health and wellbeing.

Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing so they could identify any possible concerns and take action as necessary. For example, staff noted where one person had not drunk much fluid on one day and took time to encourage them to do so, to stay hydrated.

The environment was safe for people, although there were some areas which needed updating. For example, one carpet was becoming worn. However, this was booked to be replaced when people were away on an up-and-coming holiday.

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. No one in receipt of personal care was subject to DoLS. However, where people were subject to DoLS, 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.

The registered manager oversaw this service and another service in the same village and was supported by a deputy manager at King Edwards House. Both the registered manager and the deputy manager attended learning events such as local forums and webinars, which helped them to continually assess and improve how people were being supported. For example, they reviewed people’s care plans after attending an event on oral care. The deputy manager told us, “I love it here. I am learning so much, I learn and then I share it with the staff.”