Stanway Villa

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 19 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

Stanway Villa is a residential care home. The service can support up to 8 people. At the time of the inspection, 7 people were living in the service. The service is located within a bungalow in a residential area, with access to the local community.

Who the service is for

Stanway Villa is a specialist service providing support to people with a learning disability and autistic people. 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, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Key findings

We carried out this inspection from 17 July to 31 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this inspection to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People told us they felt safe living in the service. Safeguarding concerns were identified and escalated appropriately and leaders used learning from incidents to improve practice. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and recorded and people’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff were safely recruited and were provided with appropriate training for their roles. Established staff knew people well and understood how they liked to be supported. People’s needs were assessed with consideration given to their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. Policies and procedures were in place to support staff practice and care was delivered in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture guidance.

The service was clean, homely and personalised to reflect people’s individual preferences and interests. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met, with a wide range of food and drink available that reflected their dietary needs and preferences. People’s health and wellbeing were regularly monitored and reviewed to help promote positive outcomes.

Staff and leaders worked effectively with healthcare professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. Health professionals spoke positively about the service and the support provided to people. Comments included, “The staff know the residents' likes and dislikes well, which helps them approach each individual in a way that is familiar, reassuring, and person-centred. This approach contributes to better engagement during appointments and helps achieve more positive outcomes”, “They are quick to attend to the residents to ensure they are safe and supported” and “Their willingness to support their residents while keeping their best interests at heart shines through.”

People were asked for their consent and supported to make choices about their care. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been appropriately applied for and were effectively overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring and compassionate nature of staff. People told us they liked the staff who supported them and had developed positive relationships with those who knew them well. People were supported to make choices about their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends.People received person-centred care and support. Observations and feedback demonstrated people were involved in decisions about their care, and support was tailored to individual needs. Consideration was given to barriers that may affect people’s access to services and the local community.

People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and were confident raising concerns or sharing feedback. House meetings and satisfaction surveys provided opportunities for people to have their views heard, and people described the management team as approachable and available when needed.

Leaders promoted a positive, compassionate and inclusive culture that placed people at the centre of the service. Staff understood their roles and felt supported. Systems were in place to encourage learning, reflection and continuous improvement, and leaders were open and responsive. The management team acted promptly on feedback provided during the inspection and demonstrated a commitment to improving outcomes for people.

There were some areas where further improvement was needed. While risks to people’s safety were assessed and recorded, some risk assessment information required review to ensure staff had clear and consistent guidance to follow.

We received mixed feedback about the consistency of staffing. Relatives and staff identified recent staffing changes and a reliance on agency workers who were less familiar with people. The provider acknowledged there had been vacancies within the service and confirmed new staff had recently been recruited to improve staffing continuity. Some maintenance issues were identified on the first day of the inspection. However, the provider responded promptly and ensured these issues had been addressed or escalated for action by the second day of the inspection.

Although people’s health and wellbeing were monitored, improvements were needed to ensure care plans clearly demonstrated how people were supported to identify, monitor and achieve meaningful goals and outcomes. People’s care plans did not always contain sufficient detail about people’s likes, dislikes and personal preferences. The provider responded promptly to our feedback and implemented immediate improvements to care planning documentation.

Governance systems were in place and were effective in identifying areas requiring improvement. However, actions were not always completed in a timely way. Some issues previously identified through management audits remained outstanding at the time of the inspection. Further improvements were needed to ensure identified issues were prioritised and addressed promptly.