Welcome House - The Chestnuts

Ratings

• Overall

  Inadequate

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Inadequate

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

We carried out this inspection to Welcome House – The Chestnuts on 12 August and 27 August 2025 as the registered manager was not available on our first day of inspection. Welcome House – The Chestnuts is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 15 people with a mental health diagnosis. At the time of our inspection, 14 people were living at the service, all of whom required the regulated activity of personal care.

At our last inspection, we identified breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. At this inspection, we found those shortfalls had not been improved on.

We continued to find poor governance within the service and people were not engaging in meaningful activities or being given the opportunity to live fulfilling lives. Staff were not thinking holistically about people’s needs, wishes or goals and supporting people to work through these to regain or retain their independence.

There was a poor culture within the service where leaders and staff had failed to recognise an ongoing detrimental impact on people’s safety and well-being. Staff did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Management had failed to recognise where safeguarding incidents had occurred and as such had not reported these appropriately to the relevant authorities. In addition, where accidents and incidents occurred, although action was taken at the time, learning from these was not embedded robustly to help reduce future incidents.

Management had not ensured people lived in an environment that was clean, well presented, safe and fit for its purpose. We found people’s home was dirty and contained areas that could harbour bacteria. In addition, the rear garden of the service was littered with unsuitable items which demonstrated a lack of respect and dignity towards people.

Management had not ensured there were sufficient staff on duty each day to enable people to go out with staff on an individual or impromptu basis. The provider allowed staff to work exceptionally long hours without a break meaning people were cared for by staff who may be tired and as a result may not provide high-quality care.

Staff did not follow good medicine management practices or ensure people’s care plans were accurate and up to date in relation to people’s health care needs.

Governance arrangements were not robust and shortfalls were not identified through audits and staff were not always following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff, however told us they received good training, supervision and support from the registered manager and it was evident they knew people well. Staff had ensured some people’s lives had improved through their care and dedication, and where people needed the input of external healthcare professionals this was sought promptly and appropriately.

The service was in breach of 7 legal requirements in relation to person centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, good governance, staffing, treating people with dignity and respect, and failure to submit notifications of incidents.

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 have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

People's experience of this service

People told us staff were kind towards them, however they felt they did not always have the opportunity to go out when they wished to, particularly in the evening or participate in and learn day to day skills, such as baking or cooking.Most people said they were happy living at the service and that they felt safe, although we did hear from 2 people who told us they had felt less safe since one person had moved in with them. People also said they were not consulted as to who moved in and were not given the opportunity to express their views when decisions were made that affected them, such as the location of the smoking area.People had the opportunity to participate in in-house meetings where they could give their feedback on the food or activities and as a result of one of these, an additional option was added to the daily menu.People’s lives were very insular with little evidence of them going out or attending activities that were meaningful to them and their goals or ambitions were not always pursued by staff.