The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

244 Wootton Road

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

244 Wootton Road, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 3BH (01553) 676004

Provided and run by:
One Six One Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 19 March to 20 April 2026.

 

244 Wootton Road is residential care home providing personal care for up to 3 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. At the commencement of the inspection, 3 people were living at the service and receiving the regulated activity.

The company have another service along the same road, which has the same registered manager and the same Nominated Individual. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided.

This was a comprehensive inspection of all quality statements, which was prompted due to the age of the last rating. The last comprehensive inspection of the service was in 2017, where the service was rated as Good.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

 

This inspection found the service was in breach of 3 legal regulations relating to need for consent, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, and good governance.

Consent had not always been gained and there was a lack of evidence that people’s relatives had been involved in care plan reviews. Medicines were not always safely managed.

Systems to monitor people’s risks were not always effective. Staff recorded incidents, including near-misses. However, records sometimes lacked information. Incidents were not always reviewed to identify opportunities for learning. This meant that opportunities were missed to mitigate future risks and to improve the care people received.

We found that staff were caring and supported people in a kind and considerate manner. People were encouraged and supported to access the community; staff worked well with healthcare professionals.

We raised the concerns we had found during our inspection with the registered manager and the provider; they were responsive and took action to address some of the issues immediately and developed an action plan to address the other improvements required.

We have asked the provider for further action plans in response to the concerns found at this inspection.

29 June 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 29 June 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection for this service.

The service is registered to provide care and support for up to three people with a learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were trained in safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and systems were in place to help protect people from all forms of abuse including financial. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any safeguarding concerns they may have. Appropriate action had been taken in response to the one safeguarding concern notified to us.

Risks had been assessed and actions taken to try to reduce these risks.

Staffing levels matched the assessed safe levels and were appropriate to the needs of the people who used the service. Recruitment procedures, designed to ensure that staff were suitable for this type of work, were robust.

Medicines were administered safely and records related to medicines management were accurately completed.

Staff training was provided and ensured staff were trained to meet people’s current and predicted future needs. Formal support for staff through staff meetings, supervision and appraisal needed to improve.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA and DoLS ensure that, where people lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions are made in their best interests according to a structured process. Where people’s liberty needs to be restricted for their own safety, this must done in accordance with legal requirements. The service was operating lawfully with regard to MCA and DoLS.

People were supported with their eating and drinking needs and staff helped people to maintain good health by supporting them with their day–to-day healthcare needs. Some healthcare recording needed to be more robust to ensure people remained safe and well.

Staff were caring and treated people with kindness, making sure their dignity was maintained. Staff were positive about the job they did and relationships were easy and relaxed. Staff had built up good relationships with the people they were supporting and caring for. Careful consideration had been given to people’s communication needs.

People, and their relatives, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and were encouraged to provide feedback on the service. There was a commitment to ensuring care was person centred and met people’s individual needs and specific preferences.

People had opportunities to follow a range of outside interests and hobbies.

There was a complaints procedure in place but no formal complaints had been made. Staff confirmed they would know how to support people if they wished to complain and advocacy services were available if needed.

Staff understood their roles and felt well supported, even though the registered manager was not permanently based at the service.

Effective systems were in place to assess the quality and safety of the service and action had been taken to address any concerns. There was good management oversight of the day-to-day running of the service. The manager had submitted required notifications regarding health and safety matters to CQC.