- Care home
Woodland House
Assessment report published 8 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 26 May to 29 June 2026. We visited the care home on the 26 May and the 1 and 7 June. We carried out this assessment due to concerns about the quality and safety of the care being provided to people.
Woodland House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for autistic people and people with a learning disability. The home is situated within a rural site alongside 2 other services operated by the provider. At the time of the assessment, 3 people were living at the service.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
The last rating for this service was outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to inadequate.
This assessment was comprehensive covering all the quality statements. The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person centred care, dignity, safety, safeguarding, and the governance of the service.
People were not consistently receiving safe, person-centred care. Safeguarding concerns were not consistently recognised or escalated. Environmental safety and maintenance required significant improvement. People's dignity, autonomy and choice were not always respected. Governance systems failed to identify serious concerns. The provider had not ensured the service operated in line with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. People were not consistently supported to achieve meaningful outcomes, develop independence or live the lives they chose.
In instances where CQC has decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
This service has been placed into special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
People living in the home were not able to talk to us about the care they received. We completed observations of people’s care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us and made telephone calls to people’s relatives.
The provider did not ensure people always received person-centred support which reflected their individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Although care plans contained detailed information about people, records and observations showed support was often task-focused and not delivered in line with care plans or Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) plans. People were not consistently supported to engage in meaningful activities, develop new skills or progress towards greater independence.
People were not consistently treated with dignity and respect. During observations we saw staff interactions were often limited to instructions and prompts. Some staff used child-like language and did not always engage with people in meaningful or respectful ways. Opportunities to promote privacy, dignity, choice and control were frequently missed.
The home environment did not consistently support people's wellbeing. Parts of the home were poorly maintained and contained environmental hazards. There was limited evidence people had been involved in decisions about their home or that reasonable adjustments had been considered to meet sensory and communication needs. The environment was institutional in parts and did not consistently promote a homely atmosphere.
People were not consistently supported to maintain healthy lifestyles. Records showed diets were repetitive and reliant on processed foods, with limited evidence people were encouraged to access healthier food options or try new foods. Opportunities to support physical activity, social engagement and emotional wellbeing were not consistently provided.