- Care home
Woodville
Assessment report published 24 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment between 29 July and 10 August 2026. This service was previously rated as 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.
We have 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.
We found the provider had a positive culture of safety and occurrences of accidents and incidents were rare. However, there was limited information available which demonstrated all accidents and incidents had been investigated and action was taken to prevent re-occurrences and mitigate future risk. This was discussed with the management team who agreed to strengthen processes in this area.
People were supported by enough safely recruited staff, who had the skills and knowledge to provide effective support. Staff spoke positively about the level of staffing however, acknowledged people could only attend outside activities in the evening if this was prearranged due to staffing levels. Staff had a range of training and support available to them and confirmed the training they received was of a good quality. One staff member told us, “I’ve done so much training, we get a lot of face-to-face training and it’s of a good standard.”
Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse; they were knowledgeable about what concerns they would need to report and to whom. People's needs were assessed and there was evidence of detailed care planning and risk assessments which contained relevant information about their health conditions, communication needs and support requirements. However, some assessments needed further development to ensure information about people’s sensory needs was clearly described and information about reasonable adjustments was included in people’s hospital passport documentation.
Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed where required. For example, where people lacked capacity to make decisions about finances, medicines, and healthcare interventions. 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.
There were safe systems in place for the management, storage and administration of medicine and people received their medicines when they needed them. We observed staff supporting people safely with medicines with a person-centred approach that was consistent with information in peoples’ support plans.
People's experience of this service
People appeared happy, comfortable and well cared for. Some people chose not to speak with us, whilst others had limited verbal communication and were unable to fully share their views about the service. We therefore spent time observing people's experiences and interactions throughout the assessment. We also used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This approach showed people were included and listened to and staff consistently interacted positively with them, ensuring they used people’s specific methods of communicating.
During our observations, people appeared relaxed and at ease in their home environment. We saw people spending time in communal areas engaging in activities, including arts and crafts, colouring and sensory activities. People were observed smiling, laughing and sharing positive interactions with staff. There was a warm and relaxed atmosphere, with staff and people engaging in friendly conversation and gentle humour.
Staff demonstrated kindness and respect in their interactions with people. We observed staff taking time to listen to people, responding to requests, and supporting people in a calm and patient way. We also saw staff celebrating a person’s achievements and taking an interest in what was important to them. People were supported to spend time in their rooms when they wanted privacy and time alone. People’s bedrooms were decorated and furnished with personalised items of interest. One person showed us their bedroom and spoke to us with excitement about their numerous pictures and ornaments of film stars from the past.
People, their relatives and staff were regularly asked for their views of the service. Relatives were exceptionally positive about the overall running of the service, they felt listened to, included and were confident that their loved one was well cared for and looked after. A relative said, “It's fantastic, I'm so glad [person] is at Woodville they love it. All the staff are wonderful and they get on well.” Another relative told us, “It's a wonderful place, the staff would bend over backwards to ensure things are right. The home arranges everything and I have absolutely no concerns. They do their utmost to ensure [person] gets what they need, they go out all the time and do things they enjoy. Out of 10 I would give them 15.”
Professionals who had regular involvement with the service were also highly complimentary of the service and the care provided. A professional told us, “Woodville is a truly lovely home. The staff are wonderful and the patients are all really well cared for, and you can see that the staff genuinely care for the residents. I cannot say enough how great I think this home is!”
People’s care plans included information about supporting independence and daily living skills. However, we observed, staff were mostly doing things for people, rather than supporting them to do things for themselves. For example, people were not regularly supported to be involved in food preparation or use their kitchen to get their own drinks or snacks. Some people's opportunities for community access were limited, due to staff not offering variation and spontaneity and was dependent on staffing arrangements and availability. Activities were primarily centred on organised group activities, attendance at services designed specifically for people with a learning disability, or activities within the home environment. This was not fully consistent with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, which promotes inclusion, citizenship, choice and access to the same community opportunities as other people. This was discussed with the management team who took immediate actions to address this.