Kingsley Court

This service supports older people, including people living with dementia and people with physical health needs.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on the 12 August 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.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided and told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were equally positive about working at the service and the opportunities available for training and development. One staff member told us, “I am always keen to remain up to date with mandatory training plus look at further training that will help me carry out my duties efficiently. If there is a subject that is of interest and I think will be beneficial to the company and myself, I propose to management that I undertake some training in that area and we discuss the best route forwards. I have received guidance from management on where to source training and personal development programmes.”

Staff described the home as being full of “laughter” and a place where they did “not feel rushed”. Throughout the assessment, we observed warm, respectful and relaxed interactions between staff and people using the service. People were supported by staff who had the skills, knowledge and experience to meet their needs safely and effectively. Most staff felt well supported by leaders who were visible, approachable and engaged. Comments included, “Management will always help the carers if we ask them to” and “I feel able to speak openly and voice any concerns that may arise.”

Care plans were person-centred, detailed and reflected people's individual needs, preferences and interests. They had been developed with people and, where appropriate, their families, ensuring relevant information about care, support needs and identified risks was recorded. Consistent staffing enabled positive relationships to develop, helping staff recognise and respond promptly to changes in people's needs. Risks were assessed with people's involvement, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to manage these while promoting independence and participation in activities. As a result, people received safe, compassionate and personalised care from staff who knew them well.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who promoted choice and respected individual preferences. Staff spoke to and about people with warmth, dignity and respect, recognising each person's unique needs and wishes. Independence was actively encouraged wherever possible. One staff member said, “I encourage residents to make their own choices about how they spend their time and respect their decisions if they choose not to participate. I follow people's care plans and risk assessments so that I can support independence safely without unnecessarily restricting the resident.”

This was reflected in the registered manager's approach, who told us, “I encourage staff to support independence safely, using graded assistance and positive risk taking. For example, one resident enjoys having their breakfast late. Staff ensure this is adjusted accordingly and medications are given in line with their routine, allowing them to maintain their independence. We balance support with encouragement, stepping back when appropriate.”

Effective systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities for recognising and reporting concerns. One staff member told us, “If I had any concerns about a resident's safety, I would report them.” Another said, “I would report my concerns immediately to management [after ensuring the resident's immediate safety], externally to the local adult safeguarding team or CQC [whistleblowing].”

The home was clean, well maintained and generally free from environmental hazards. Appropriate safety checks had been completed, and equipment was maintained in good working order. However, we found not all potential environmental risks had been identified. On the day of the assessment, a window restrictor in one person’s room on the ground floor had been disengaged. The resident advised us it was their choice as it was exceptionally hot, however, an appropriate risk assessment had not been put in place. Management addressed this immediately during the inspection.

People received their medicines when they needed them, supported by staff who had received the necessary training and competency assessments. Staff told us they had become more confident in this area, and we observed medicines being administered safely and in a person-centred way that was consistent with people's care plans. People and their relatives confirmed they were satisfied with the support provided.

Medicines were generally managed safely; however, some minor shortfalls were identified during the inspection. These were discussed with management, who took immediate action to address them. We found no evidence this had a negative impact on people. Ongoing competency checks helped ensure staff continued to administer medicines safely and in line with best practice.

The provider had developed a positive learning culture where people, relatives and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and provide feedback. Incidents were investigated thoroughly, with learning used to improve practice. Relatives told us people were supported effectively to manage health risks and maintain their wellbeing, and staff used guidance within care records to provide safe and consistent support.

The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people were deprived of their liberty, appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been applied for and kept under regular review. People were not subject to unnecessary restrictions and were supported to make choices and retain as much control over their daily lives as possible.

The service worked effectively with healthcare professionals and partner agencies to ensure people's needs were met. Information was shared appropriately, and health concerns were escalated promptly when required to support positive outcomes.

The provider's vision and values were well understood across the staff team and reinforced through regular meetings, supervision and appraisal processes. These focused on delivering high-quality care and treating people as individuals, ensuring they felt valued, respected and listened to.

There was a clear and effective management structure that provided both accountability and support throughout the service. People and their relatives spoke positively about the leadership team, and we saw evidence of continuous learning, development and a commitment to improving the quality of care provided. Overall, the service demonstrated a strong person-centred culture, with leaders striving to ensure people received safe, responsive and compassionate care.