You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 October 2019

About the service

Walford Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to six people with learning disabilities under the age of 65. The service can support up to a maximum of six people.

The home is split over two levels with bedrooms situated on both the ground and first floor. People have access to ensuite toilets and shared communal bathrooms. People were able to move around the home freely and have access to outside space. The home is located close to local amenities and has accessible transport to support people to attend college placements and activities outside of the local area.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin 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 receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

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 carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used some restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles.

People were safeguarded from harm by staff who had received the relevant training. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and clear guidance was in place to explain to staff how to mitigate any known risk. People were supported by staff who had been recruited following safe recruitment procedures. People received their medicine on time and were protected from the risk of infection. Accident and incident forms were completed, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong.

People’s care needs were assessed, and staff received training that enabled them to meet people’s needs. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and had access to fluids and snacks. Systems were in place to ensure information was shared when necessary. For example, when accessing health care. The building was adapted to meet people’s needs and people had access to outside space.

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.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

People were treated with kindness and supported to express their opinion wherever possible. People’s dignity was protected, and people were encouraged to maintain develop their independence.

People’s care was personalised to their individual needs and people had access to activities they were known to enjoy. Staff used alternative means of communication such as photographs to assist people in the exchange of information. People were supported to maintain relat

Inspection areas



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 8 October 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.