Woodview Care Centre

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 13 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 15 December 2026 to 15 January 2026

Woodview Care Centre is a nursing home that provides care and support for older adults, people living with dementia, younger adults, and people with physical disabilities and mental health conditions. At the time of the inspection, some people using the service had a learning disability, so we assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We carried out this assessment because the service was previously placed in Special Measures. We needed to review whether the provider had made the required improvements and whether the quality and safety of care had sufficiently improved.

This service has been in Special Measures since 17 July 2025. The provider demonstrated improvements had been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to, person-centred care, dignity and respect, consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, good governance, safe staffing and robust recruitment procedures. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and compassionate. People’s needs were assessed, and staff worked well together and with professionals to deliver coordinated care. Nutrition and hydration needs were met, and referrals were acted on promptly. Safety systems were now in place, and incidents were investigated with learning shared. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to recognise and report concerns. Safeguarding issues were responded to appropriately, and actions were taken to reduce risks to people.

Governance processes were newly implemented and were starting to show positive outcomes, such as reducing falls. Staffing levels were generally safe, and recruitment files showed appropriate checks were now completed before staff started work.

The registered manager was visible and committed to improvement. Staff felt supported and confident to speak up, and there was a positive culture of openness and inclusion.

However, care plans did not always include clear guidance on emotional support or proactive strategies, and systems to monitor outcomes and goals were not in place. Improvements were needed to ensure all care plans used positive, person‑centred language. Further improvements were required in infection prevention and control, care planning and medicines monitoring. Although staffing levels were generally safe, some people reported delays at busy times. Training was mostly completed, but learning disability and autism training was not aligned with the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice.