You are here

Archived: Woodland Grove Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 June 2016

This inspection took place on 22 April 2016 and was unannounced. Woodland Grove provides accommodation and personal care for up to ten people with autism and learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection seven people were using the service.

The service had a 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.

Staff worked to protect people from the risk of abuse and appropriate action was taken following any incidents to try and reduce the risks of incidents happening again. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and plans put into place to reduce risks.

People were supported by a sufficient number of staff and staffing levels were flexible to meet people’s needs. Effective recruitment procedures ensured staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults. People received their medicines as prescribed and they were safely stored.

Staff were provided with a wide range of knowledge and skills to care for people effectively and felt supported in their role. People had access to sufficient quantities of food and drink and were able to choose the food they wanted. People received support from healthcare professionals when needed.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found this legislation was being used correctly to protect people who were not able to make their own decisions about the care they received. Restraint was only used when necessary and records about restraint were detailed.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff and we observed many positive interactions. Staff ensured people’s views were taken into account when making decisions about their care and people were supported to make day to day choices. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and ensured their privacy was respected.

People were provided with care that was responsive to their changing needs and personal preferences. Staff also helped people to be as independent as possible. There was a programme of activities available which was tailored to individual preferences. There was a clear complaints procedure in place and any complaints received had been appropriately responded to.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and these resulted in improvements being made. The registered manager led by example and staff felt able to speak with them about any concerns. There was an open and honest culture in the home.

Inspection areas



Updated 9 June 2016

The service was safe.

People received the support required to keep them safe and reduce risks to their safety. Incidents were responded to appropriately.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people�s needs.

People received their medication when required and it was stored and recorded appropriately.



Updated 9 June 2016

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who received support through training and supervision.

Where people lacked the capacity to provide consent for a particular decision, their rights were protected.

People had access to sufficient food and drink and access to healthcare professionals such as their GP and dentist when needed.



Updated 9 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who had developed positive, caring relationships with them.

Staff took account of people�s views and involved people in making decisions where possible.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected.



Updated 9 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People received the care and support they required and staff responded to changes in their needs. There was a comprehensive programme of activities which were individually tailored.

Complaints were responded to appropriately and relatives felt comfortable making a complaint.



Updated 9 June 2016

The service was well led.

There was an open and transparent culture in the home.

The registered manager led by example.

Systems to assess the quality of the service were well embedded and resulted in improvements.