The King William Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 12 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

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.