121 Watleys End Road

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 11 March 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: we visited the service on the 13, 14 and 21 January 2026. This was a comprehensive assessment where we looked at all the quality statements. 121 Watleys End Road is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 14 people. There were 13 people living at the home at the time of our inspection and 1 person was in hospital.

We 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, choice, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found people received care and support in accordance with the principles of this guidance.

We rated the service as Requires Improvement overall.

Governance arrangements were not robust and did not identify the shortfalls we found during the assessment including concerns around the management of infection control, the auditing of care plans and associated documents. Medication audits were not robust to ensure medications were in date and clearly labelled when opened. We identified a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Whilst people were safe, improvements were needed to ensure risk assessments and care plans included current and up to date information. The provider took action to address shortfalls we found during the assessment. This included updating missing care plans in respect of mental capacity and deprivations of liberty safeguards.

Sufficient staff were working in the home, but staff said at peak times in the morning and during mealtimes it could be busy due to the high support needs of the people they were supporting.

The service had safe recruitment practices to protect the people living in the home. There were gaps in training, and the registered manager was addressing these areas. However, there was a lack of records to demonstrate agency staff had completed a comprehensive induction when they started working in the home ensuring people were safe.

Whilst staff said they were supported, there was a lack of formal supervisions in line with the expectations of the provider.

There was a person-centred approach with staff demonstrating they knew people well. People’s health care needs were kept under review. People had access to health and social care professionals when this was needed along with access to independent advocacy services.

Staff were caring and kind towards the people they supported. The staff knew people well and understood their needs. However, at certain times during our visit, some staff communication was not fully person centred.

Improvements were needed to ensure staff recorded the monthly checks on people’s moving and handling equipment including personal slings. External contractors had completed checks on equipment in the home such as moving handling equipment.