Chandos Lodge Nursing Home

Updated 20 January 2026

Date of inspection 11 February to 18 March 2026. The service is a nursing home providing care and support to 31 older people, including people with dementia. At the time of this inspection, 29 people were living at the service.

The inspection was carried out in response to safety concerns received about the service and to follow up on previous breaches of regulations. We found the provider remained in breach of regulations and we identified 8 breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, person-centred care, consent, governance, and the provider’s failure to notify the Commission of notifiable incidents at this inspection.

Risks to people were not always identified or effectively mitigated, which meant people were exposed to the risk of harm. People were not safeguarded from the risk of abuse, and the service was not working in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people were not always supported through appropriate decision-making processes placing them at increased risk of abuse and harm. Staff were not safely recruited with staffing levels not always sufficient to meet people’s needs. Training was not consistently embedded in practice, and some staff had not received training required for their roles.

Person-centred care was not consistently provided. Assessments were not fully completed, effective, and people’s choices, privacy and dignity were not promoted. The service was not appropriately managed, governance systems were not effective and had failed to identify and address the concerns we found. Records were not always accurate, complete or maintained in line with best practice and the service had not informed us of all notifiable incidents as required.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to breaches of regulations relating to person centred care, consent, staffing and notifications of incidents to us to enable us to monitor progress within the service.

Updated 20 January 2026

Most relatives told us their family member was safe and that the care provided was good.

They generally felt the staff had adequate training to support their family member and described staff as ‘kind and caring.’ However, relatives were not involved in care planning or reviews of care. Some felt communication could be improved to keep them updated on their family member’s care, including actions taken in response to areas such as weight loss and medicine changes.

Some relatives raised concerns about the front door not being secure enough, and the lack of an outside garden area, which limited opportunities for access to fresh air and well-being. Relatives told us that there appeared to be limited activities with people often sitting in the main room with the television on in the background. They confirmed some activities were taking place such as colouring, throwing balls, seated exercises, music and seasonal events such as Christmas and birthday celebrations. A relative told us that activities did not reflect their family member’s interests, hobbies or life history. They commented,” One to one engagement between staff and people was limited, ‘rudimentary,’ and much of the time people were left to watch television. “

Relatives were unaware of a formal complaints process, although they indicated that if they had any concerns, they would raise them directly with the manager in day-to-day charge.

Relatives described the environment as clean and well maintained, although some relatives told us it could benefit from a refresh and modernisation. Relatives gave mixed feedback about the environment, some relatives described it as calm and suitable, whilst others found it noisy and sometimes distressing for people.

Whilst relatives described the manager in day-to-day charge as accessible, approachable, helpful, friendly and capable. However, inspection findings identified concerns regarding governance, oversight and the effectiveness of systems within the service.