Woodham Lodge

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 13 August 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment 11 and 12 June 2025. We assessed the service to follow up on the previous breaches identified in relating to good governance, infection prevention and control, and equipment.

Woodham Lodge is a residential care home for people with a learning disability. They are registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people. At the time of our inspection 5 people were living at the home. The home is a bungalow with a large, shared garden with the neighbouring care service.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they are the provider and legally responsible for how the service is run and the quality and safety of the care provided.

We reviewed the service against our “Right Support, Right Care’ Right Culture” guidance to evaluate about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability were treated with respect, equality; dignity, choices; independence and good access to local communities, that most people take for granted. We gave the service 24 hours notice of our site visit to make sure that people would be in and that they would be happy for us to visit them.

The service had a positive person-centred culture. Permanent staff knew people well. Staff built up a good rapport with people and involved them and their relatives in care planning. Medicines were managed safely. Visiting professionals gave positive feedback about staff and management. Lessons had been learned from accidents, incidents and safeguarding and were shared with staff. Care pathways, assessments and transitions were managed well. People felt safe at the service. Consent was sought when providing care, and best interest decisions and mental capacity assessments were in place when needed. People’s independence was promoted whenever possible. Staff felt able to speak up, and said management listened and acted on their suggestions. There were robust governance systems in place to identify and address issues and where necessary, there was evidence of lessons learned.