- Care home
The Chestnuts
Assessment report published 28 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The Chestnuts is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 20 autistic people and people with a learning disability. This assessment took place on 1 and 5 October 2026 and at the time of the assessment, 19 people were living at the service.
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 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. The Registered Manager told us, “The people are at the centre of everything we do. We want to empower them to have a choice and promote their independence.”
The provider had not ensured all environmental and food safety risks were effectively managed. We found a cupboard containing chemicals was unsecured and some food was out of date or did not have appropriate labelling. The Registered Manager secured the cupboard immediately and ensure food beyond its storage date was removed. However, equipment and facilities were regularly checked to ensure they remained safe. Records showed actions identified from these checks were monitored and completed promptly.
Care plans contained detailed and personalised information about people’s health needs. Risk assessments reflected people’s individual risks and provided staff with guidance to support people safely, including in relation to nutrition, epilepsy and modified diets. Staff received relevant training to support people safely. Relatives told us that they felt staffing levels were consistent and that people were supported safely with their mobility and using equipment.
Recruitment checks were completed appropriately. Staff received regular supervision and leaders undertook competency assessments. Leaders ensured staff received training to meet people’s needs.
Medicines were managed safely, with systems in place for storing and administering medicines. Care plans contained clear guidance for staff on when ‘as required’ medicines should be administered. Leaders worked closely with professionals to review medicines and support people with complex health care needs.
Leaders demonstrated a positive approach to learning from incidents and safeguarding concerns. These were investigated and actions implemented to reduce recurrence. Staff told us learning was shared through handovers and team meetings. For example, following a fall, referrals were made to relevant professionals and measures introduced to reduce risks. One staff member told us, “If there are lessons to learn, we discuss them in team meetings and take the manager’s advice on how we can do things better in the future.”
Staff consistently described a supportive leadership team and a culture focused on people, choice and independence. Governance systems provided management oversight and ensured action plans were monitored to support service improvement.
Leaders demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement through action plans and implementing new ideas. This included engaging with professional forums and improving opportunities for people to access their community.
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 found that staff and leaders worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.
People's experience of this service
We received positive feedback from people and relatives about their experience using the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to understand the experiences of people who were less able to communicate verbally.
Many interactions were positive and caring. Staff demonstrated patience, warmth and knowledge of people’s preferences. However, we identified occasions where staff moved people using wheelchairs or adjusted clothing without communicating with them first. This did not always promote dignity or respect. Leaders acknowledged the concerns and discussed them with staff immediately. Staff were required to complete further training on dignity and respect, and leaders planned to monitor practice to ensure improvements were embedded and consistently maintained.
Relatives told us staff knew people’s individual routines and communication methods. They told us staff recognised non-verbal communication methods that may indicate if people were in pain, distress or unwell. One relative told us, “I think the staff treat everyone with love, care and a lot of consideration as to how they are feeling.” One staff member told us, “For people who do not communicate verbally, we know them and recognise changes, such as not eating when they usually eat well, refusing things or not engaging in activities.”
Care plans included detailed communication plans, nutritional support arrangements and specialist input which helped staff understand how to meet people’s needs. They had information about hobbies, relationships and routines which supported staff to provide consistent person centred care. Most relatives were aware people had care plans and told us they were reviewed and updated. One relative told us, “I have just had an update to [person’s] care plan. I asked them to remove the bit about Makaton, which is no longer relevant.”
Care plans recognised people’s diverse needs and considered cultural preferences and religious beliefs. Examples included supporting a person to attend church and detailed guidance for supporting people with visual impairments.
People were encouraged to make choices and maintain independence. Records demonstrated people accessed activities, community outings, church services and support to develop daily living skills. Relatives told us people were supported to participate in activities based on their interests. Staff described supporting people to complete tasks independently where possible.
Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and healthcare professionals were involved in reviewing treatment and support arrangements when required. Relatives described being involved in decisions, including vaccinations and appointments. One relative told us, ““We are involved in decisions about [person’s] care. We are asked if we will sign a form before they have a flu jab for instance. They go to the dentist with the staff.”
Leaders sought feedback from people and their relatives through regular meetings, care plan reviews and ongoing communication. Most relatives told us communication with managers and staff was effective, and they could contact the service and received updates when people’s health needs changed.