- Care home
Burntwood Lodge
Assessment report published 28 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 3 September and 5 September 2026.
Burntwood Lodge is a residential care home registered to provide care and support for up to 6 people. The service specialises in support for people who have a learning disability and autistic people. . There were 5 people being supported at the time of our assessment. The assessment took place based on the length of time since the last assessment.
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 identified breaches of legal regulation relating to person centred care, risks related to people’s care, staff training and supervision and governance.
Governance and oversight systems were ineffective and had failed to identify or address issues relating to medicines management, risk monitoring, safeguarding, staff training, communication support, infection prevention and control, mental capacity and person-centred care.
Assessment and transition processes were not robust. A person with a specific health condition had been admitted to the service without a sufficiently detailed assessment of suitability. People's health needs were not always effectively monitored. Oversight of fluid intake, continence care, stoma care and constipation risk was inconsistent. Whilst incidents were recorded and immediate action was usually taken, there was little evidence of analysis, learning or improvement. Safeguarding concerns were not always supported by documented investigations and records to monitor emotional distress were not analysed to identify trends or preventative strategies.
Activities were limited and largely focused on attendance at day centres, with few opportunities for meaningful individual pursuits or evening activities. People were not always supported to exercise choice and control; communication methods were not adapted to meet individual needs and engagement processes such as resident meetings and key worker sessions were not always meaningful.
Staff demonstrated caring qualities, but practice was not always consistent. Training in Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture had not been provided and leaders lacked the required specialist learning disability and autism training. Opportunities for learning, improvement and quality assurance were not effectively embedded within the service.
People were supported by a staff team that generally knew them well and there were positive examples of kind and caring interactions. People appeared comfortable with staff, were well presented, lived in personalised bedrooms and were supported to access healthcare services, including hospital appointments. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs, recruitment processes were robust, and environmental and fire safety checks were completed.
People's experience of this service
People's experiences were not always consistently person-centred. One person told us they sometimes felt bored, and opportunities for meaningful activities, particularly during evenings, were limited. We also observed that one person regularly dominated decisions about what was watched on the television in communal areas, which reduced opportunities for others to exercise choice and control.
People's communication needs were not always fully recognised or supported. Whilst staff knew people well, there was little evidence of alternative communication methods being used to help people understand information, express their views or participate in decisions about their care.
People's health and wellbeing were not always supported by robust systems. We found weaknesses in the monitoring of fluid intake, continence care, stoma care, constipation and urinary tract infection risks. Whilst staff responded when concerns arose and people were supported to access healthcare professionals, records and oversight arrangements did not always provide assurance that risks were being effectively monitored and managed.
People received support from staff who generally knew them well and understood their day-to-day needs. Throughout the assessment, we observed positive and caring interactions. People appeared comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff, and staff responded positively when people sought support or reassurance.
People were supported to dress well, and their bedrooms were personalised to reflect their individual interests and preferences. People were also supported to access healthcare services, including GP appointments, hospital appointments and specialist input when required.