William Wood House

Updated 15 May 2026

William Wood House is specialist 'extra care' housing that can provide personal care for up to 30 people. At the time of the inspection 29 people aged 55 and over received care. People lived-in self-contained flats across two floors of the service. Not everyone using the service received personal care. CQC's regulatory remit applies where people receive personal care, which includes support with tasks such as personal hygiene and eating. For those who do receive personal care, we also consider the wider care and support provided to ensure people's overall needs are being met.

Since the last inspection improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of previous regulations.

We assessed the service against ‘right care, right support, 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 people received care in accordance with this guidance and staff had received appropriate training relating to people with a learning disability and autistic people.

Overall, people and their relatives provided positive feedback about the service, speaking highly of the permanent staff and leadership team. While they shared that standards occasionally varied when temporary agency workers were used, the registered manager was addressing this. Active recruitment was underway to expand the permanent team and reduce agency reliance.

People were supported to have maximum 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. Medicines were managed safely with appropriate systems in place for ordering, storage, administration and disposal.

The leadership team gathered feedback and reviewed comments from people and their relatives to drive service development. Since the previous inspection, oversight and governance arrangements had been strengthened. Quality-monitoring systems were in place, with the leadership team conducting regular audits and analysing accidents and incidents to identify trends and prevent recurrence.

Staff understood what abuse was, had completed safeguarding training and understood the importance of reporting any concerns in a timely way helping to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and that any concerns were identified, reported and acted upon promptly to maintain their safety and wellbeing.

Safe recruitment processes were in place, and staff received ongoing supervision, appraisals, and relevant training. Feedback regarding staffing arrangements was mixed. While several staff members felt supported and reported positive experiences, others indicated that deployment levels were occasionally insufficient to meet the increasing needs of people using the service. Additionally, some staff found managing rotas, unplanned calls, and daily schedules challenging.

While some staff described the registered manager as visible and approachable, others felt the workplace culture lacked sufficient openness and transparency, highlighting that interpersonal dynamics occasionally made it difficult to raise concerns. The registered manager acknowledged the complexities of overseeing two services simultaneously and explained that recent leadership changes had caused some disruption. Receptive to our feedback, the registered manager outlined comprehensive action plans, with support from the provider, to address these issues.

Improvements had been made to ensure risks to people were mitigated. Risk management plans were in place to provide staff with clear guidance on supporting individuals and safely managing potential hazards. While we found inconsistencies in the promptness of care plan updates following changes in people's needs, care delivery remained safe. The registered manager took immediate action to resolve these administrative discrepancies. They also confirmed the provider had recognised the limitations of the current care planning system, and the service was transitioning to a new digital system with enhanced monitoring and reporting functions, to underpin and maintain the quality and accuracy of individualised care records.

Updated 15 May 2026

People and their relatives expressed overall satisfaction with the service, speaking positively about the approach of the permanent staff who supported them and the leadership team. They shared that care was delivered with consistent kindness and respect, noting they would recommend the service to others. One person said, “I love living here, I am happy with everything that is provided.” Another person stated, “The permanent regular carers are ok and do tasks the way I like them to be done.” A relative shared, “As far as I am concerned, they tick all the boxes with the care provided,” while another commented on the staff approach, noting, “They can’t do enough for [family member].”

However, discrepancies in the consistency of care occurred when agency staff were deployed. One person explained, “When the agency staff come to help me, they don’t know where things are and it takes them far too long to do simple tasks. The other thing is when it is agency staff, I don’t want to be showered by a man young enough to be my grandson. I am 80+ years old, so if a man comes, I don’t have a shower!” A relative shared, “Agency staff will cut corners and not provide care to the usual standard. I feel the agency staff are letting the facility down, but I also understand that is hard to avoid using them.”

Feedback regarding staff arrival times and call bell responses was mixed. The majority described a reliable service where staff arrived quickly, stayed for the full duration of calls, and did not rush them. One person said, “The timings of the calls are ok, they suit me.” Another shared, “They run pretty much to time I find. I don’t feel rushed and I feel safe with the carers.” However, others experienced delays. One relative noted, “They [staff] say they will be there in a minute when she presses the buzzer, but it can be 30 minutes before they respond to the buzzer. [Family member] feels rushed when the carers call.”

Despite these inconsistencies people and relatives had developed positive relationships and a good rapport with the leadership team and permanent staff. One person commented, “There are several different carers, but they know my routine. I am very happy living here, I do not consider any improvements are required, the care service I receive meets my needs.” A relative shared, “If I want to speak to the manager I call into the office whilst visiting.”

Individuals felt respected and empowered to make their own choices and decisions. Staff maintained a good knowledge of people’s specific health conditions, providing safe, effective, and well-informed care.

Care plans contained person-centred information that helped staff understand people's backgrounds, preferences, and what was important to them. This contributed toward meaningful engagement and positive interactions. Documentation reflected people and their relatives in decision-making. Highlighting this collaboration, one relative shared, “I am involved with care reviews and feel I am updated with any changes.”