Woodville

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 24 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this assessment between 29 July and 10 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment 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.

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.

We found the provider had a positive culture of safety and occurrences of accidents and incidents were rare. However, there was limited information available which demonstrated all accidents and incidents had been investigated and action was taken to prevent re-occurrences and mitigate future risk. This was discussed with the management team who agreed to strengthen processes in this area.

People were supported by enough safely recruited staff, who had the skills and knowledge to provide effective support. Staff spoke positively about the level of staffing however, acknowledged people could only attend outside activities in the evening if this was prearranged due to staffing levels. Staff had a range of training and support available to them and confirmed the training they received was of a good quality. One staff member told us, “I’ve done so much training, we get a lot of face-to-face training and it’s of a good standard.”

Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse; they were knowledgeable about what concerns they would need to report and to whom. People's needs were assessed and there was evidence of detailed care planning and risk assessments which contained relevant information about their health conditions, communication needs and support requirements. However, some assessments needed further development to ensure information about people’s sensory needs was clearly described and information about reasonable adjustments was included in people’s hospital passport documentation.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed where required. For example, where people lacked capacity to make decisions about finances, medicines, and healthcare interventions. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

There were safe systems in place for the management, storage and administration of medicine and people received their medicines when they needed them. We observed staff supporting people safely with medicines with a person-centred approach that was consistent with information in peoples’ support plans.