Wentworth Close

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 5 August 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Wentworth Close is a residential care home. At the time of our inspection there were 4 people using the service. This unannounced inspection was carried out during several site visits between 8-21 May 2025. The service specialised in the care of people with a learning disability and autistic people. 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.

This assessment was to follow up on a previous breach of Regulation 17 Good Governance. At this inspection we found sufficient improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach.

The formats used to record house meetings and for surveys were not beneficial in capturing the views and wishes of people at the service. The impact of this was limited in that staff knew people well and there was evidence that people were living busy and active lives. There was some blurring of the roles and responsibilities of the manager and a support worker who worked one day a week as positive behaviour support lead (PBS). This meant that some issues raised were not always dealt with in a timely way. The area manager assured us that this could be reviewed and easily addressed.

People were supported by a stable staff team who knew people well and what was important to them. Everyone had the choice to go out daily and were supported to take part in a wide range of activities to meet their individual needs and wishes. People had regular contact with family and friends either through visits or letters.

Keyworkers were used to demonstrate that people were supported to share their aspirations. Care was person centred and promoted people’s dignity, privacy, and human rights. Staff were skilled in meeting people’s needs, and they responded effectively when people showed signs of distress, anxiety, and frustration.

Leaders and staff actively considered the least restrictive options to keep people safe. There was evidence the service learned from incidents and made improvements where needed. Staff sought appropriate professional advice and support when needed to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained. Quality assurance assessments were used to review the performance of the service. Action was taken based on the findings of the various audits.