Kingly Terrace

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 24 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Kingly Terrace is a care home without nursing, providing accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people including those living with dementia, mental health conditions or physical disabilities. At the time of the assessment, 10 people were living at the service.

This was a routine assessment carried out between 21 July and 03 August 2026, including site visits on 21 and 22 July 2026, and 03 August 2026. The assessment reviewed how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led the service was. During the assessment, we spoke with people using the service, their relatives and staff at different levels. We also reviewed care records, policies, audits and other documentation and observed care.

Overall, Kingly Terrace provided good-quality care and support, with many areas of good practice identified during the assessment. Some improvements were needed to strengthen governance and ensure systems and records were consistently maintained. The service had effective systems in place to help keep people safe, manage risks and respond appropriately when concerns arose. Staff worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure care was coordinated and people's changing needs were identified and responded to promptly.

Care planning was based on comprehensive assessments and recognised clinical tools were used to support the delivery of safe and effective care. Medicines were managed safely, infection prevention and control arrangements were in place, and the environment was well maintained and supported people's safety. Staff received training appropriate to their roles and worked together to provide consistent care.Governance arrangements included audits, regular monitoring and oversight to support the quality and safety of the service. However, we identified some areas where further improvement was needed. Although staffing levels were sufficient, staff supervision and some recruitment records had not always been maintained in line with the provider's own procedures. We also found opportunities to strengthen Mental Capacity Act documentation, improve oversight of meaningful activities and community involvement, and further develop infection prevention arrangements through a documented deep cleaning schedule. These issues were not widespread but demonstrated that governance processes had not always identified or addressed all areas requiring improvement before our assessment. The provider was open and responsive to feedback and had already started to take action to address the issues identified.

Overall, the assessment found a well-managed service that continued to provide good-quality care. The improvements identified were mainly related to governance, documentation and oversight rather than the day-to-day delivery of care.