You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 November 2019

About the service

Wood House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for 16 people. People who live at the home have learning and physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection, there were 15 people living at Wood House.

The home met most of the characteristics that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

However, the home accommodated more people than would be the optimum and was larger in scale than a domestic property. This was mitigated to some degree as each person had their own flat or apartment and were allocated staff daily to support them in a person centred way. Care was tailored to the person.

The building was set back from the road in a residential area close to shops. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff did not wear anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People continued to receive safe care. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew what they had to do to keep people safe. People were protected from unsuitable staff because robust recruitment procedures were carried out. Risk assessments were in place to reduce and manage risks within people’s lives.

People had access to other health and social professionals. Safe systems were in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities based on their interests within the community and in their home. People were consulted on how they wanted to be supported through service user engagement meetings and care reviews.

Staff were trained to support people effectively. Good communication was in place in the form of daily handovers, team meetings and one to one supervision. Staff said they were supported in their roles.

Staff continued to provide people with daily choices on what they wanted to eat, wear and choice in respect of activities. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting.

Staff were caring and provided people with care tailored to their needs promoting their rights to an ordinary life. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the running of the home and the quality of the care being delivered. There was an open and transparent culture within the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

Good (report published April 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) wh

Inspection areas



Updated 21 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 21 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 21 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 21 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 21 November 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.