What life is like for people using this service: The registered person had gone above and beyond, to consult, empower, and listen to people’s views. Information was used to in a way that considered how best to deliver person centred care in a way that improved people’s outcomes. One relative said, “[Name] was at death's door when we brought him here. We did not think they were going to make it. But they have done a miracle. [Name] is safe and cared for, and they are stimulated.” One person said, “If it’s not to my liking they seem to accommodate me and I get something I like.”

Staff used innovative and individual ways of involving people and their family, friends, and the local community to meet people’s needs in a personalised and sensitive way. People received personalised care that responded to their needs. Staff were caring and responsive, and people consistently told us how they were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.

People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. People were respected as an individual, with their own social and cultural diversity, values and beliefs. Staff looked at people’s backgrounds and used this to enable and encourage people to maintain their interests and celebrate their lifetime achievements.

People benefitted from a service which went to great lengths to include, and encourage people to be socially engaged and stimulated. Arrangements for social activities was exceptional and personalised. One person said, “I do the keep fit and yoga. We get a sheet which says what’s happening each day. They are really good.”

Since the last inspection, people had been placed at the centre of the service had been consulted with in different ways. People and staff told us they felt respected, and listened to. One relative said, “I think the staff are fantastic. They treat [name] with dignity and respect. I have never had any issues with the staff.”

The service was at the heart of the local community with strong community links. There was a variety of different community groups regularly visiting. People were helped to join events in their community. Staff were motivated by and proud of the service. One staff member said, “I have been here for about four years now. I love my job.”

The provider had completely overhauled the management structure and had reviewed the roles and responsibilities within the organisation. The service was effectively managed and well led.

This met the characteristics of good, with outstanding elements in some areas.

More information is in the full report.

Woodland Grove is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Woodland Grove accommodates up to 72 people across three separate floors each of which have adapted facilities. One of the units specialises in providing dementia care in an adapted building. At the time of our inspection, sixty-four people were using the service.

We carried out this unannounced inspection on the 25 January 2018. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches. This is the first time the provider has been rated as requires improvement. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Before the inspection, Essex County Council had notified us that a number of safeguarding alerts had been raised. These had identified a failure in the registered persons duty to raise serious concerns both to the local authority and with the Care Quality Commission. We undertook a comprehensive inspection in response to these concerns.

A registered manager was in post, but because of the nature of the concerns that had been raised; they had been suspended since October 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. In their absence, the provider employed a care consultancy company to assist them with the day to day running of the service. At the time of the inspection, the provider was working with the care consultancy company to review what remedial action needed to be made.

The registered personshad not had an oversight of the number of accidents or incidents that had occurred and they had not worked within the provider’s guidance. They did not use information about the service to look at how people’s safety could be improved.

The registered personshad failed in their duty to deal with complaints in an effective and responsive way. The provider had a range of audit systems in place, but the registered persons had not used these systems effectively. They did not use information to consider how they could continuously improve the service.

The service was not actively identifying the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss, and no one at the service had been trained in the accessible communication standards. We have recommended that the registered provider should consider how they identify people who have specific information or communication requirements.

Staff received an induction to prepare them for their role and additional training was provided to support their learning, but the registered persons had not always provided support to staff and supervision meetings had been sporadic. Appraisals had not been carried out.

Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to reduce the likelihood of harm, but these were not personalised.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Care plans contained an assessment of people’s capacity but these were not specific. We observed staff supporting people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People spoke positively about the service and told us they were listened to by staff that were kind and caring towards them. People could participate in meaningful activities.

There were adequate systems in place for the safe administration of