- Care home
Welcome House - The Chestnuts
Assessment report published 13 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Inspection: 15 September 2026 to 22 September 2026. Welcome House- The Chestnuts is a residential care home registered to support up to 15 people living with a mental health diagnosis. Not everyone supported by this service received the regulated activity of personal care. This assessment looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our assessment, the provider was supporting 11 people of whom 6 received the regulated activity of personal care.
The inspection was conducted to follow up an inspection in August 2025 where the service was rated “Inadequate” and multiple breaches of regulation identified. Following this inspection, the rating has changed to “Requires Improvement”. Although improvements in the quality and safety of care had been made, we identified repeated breaches of regulation in relation to person-centred care, dignity and respect, safe care and treatment and good governance.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) 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. At the time of the assessment, the service was supporting a small number of people with a learning disability. The provider had not fully considered ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ to ensure people received care that was person-centred or supported them to overcome barriers faced in society.
People were not consistently empowered to achieve any goals and aspirations through the care they received. Although some people had goals around living independently in the future, gaining voluntary employment or maintaining personal relationships, there was no clear plan of how this could be achieved. Leaders and staff were not consistently aware that people had any goals, or the support they might need to achieve these.
The model of care did not promote people’s independence. Even though most people could undertake some level of daily tasks for themselves and expressed enjoyment in doing so, there was little evidence that this was happening or that people were being supported to learn skills.
People’s physical health needs were met well, and there were appropriate levels of guidance and monitoring to support people’s health and wellbeing. Where people’s health needs changed, appropriate advice was sought and referrals made to ensure they could be supported safely.
There were sufficient staff employed to support people, who were safely recruited and appropriately training to support people’s needs. They were knowledgeable about people’s wellbeing and about their responsibilities to safeguard people from harm.
People were treated with kindness, however interactions were largely task based rather than staff spending quality time with people or discussing their wellbeing. There had been an increase in activities since our last inspection, but these were largely undertaken as groups and did not always reflect people’s abilities or social needs. There was lack of consideration as to individual wishes and preferences such as around activities and food, or how people could be empowered to participate in their wider community or culture. There was limited evidence around how people had been involved in reviewing their care to ensure it continued to meet their wishes.
The environment was largely well maintained, however the standard of cleanliness continued to fall below expectations in certain areas. Risks were posed to people through smoking in the building which had not been well assessed or monitored.
There were a system of audits and checks on the quality of care, but these were not always effective and had not identified areas found within our inspection.
There was no Registered Manager in position at the time of our inspection. Whilst the leadership arrangements had embedded some improvements, leaders themselves were not always knowledgeable about people or had a clear vision for the service. There was a lack of clear focus on best practice mental health care, or how care could be delivered holistically to ensure people had the best possible quality of care.
The service was previously placed into “Special Measures” which is an enhanced level of monitoring due to risks to the safety of people. Following this inspection, sufficient improvements have been made, and the service has been removed from special measures. However, we have requested an action plan from the provider setting out the steps they will take to ensure further improvements are made.
People's experience of this service
We received varied feedback about people’s experience of living at The Chestnuts. People and relatives told inspectors that the care being delivered had improved since the last inspection, that there was a greater variety of activities and that leaders were approachable. One relative told us “The new manager has introduced an activities timetable which is much better and trying to do more activities outside the home. I’m happy at the moment and the manager is approachable with an open door policy, and is open to suggestions”. A person living at the service echoed this and explained “The staff are good. There is nothing that could be better at the moment”. A professional working with the home noted “The manager has changed and I have seen a fair more happier home, with the residents and staff seeming to be happy.
However, the care people received was not clearly tailored to their wishes, abilities or needs. It did not promote people’s independence, choice or support them to achieve any goals or aspirations from life. There were elements of care that were not person-centred or gave people control over the day in a way that reflected them as adults. One person told us “We all wake up early, at 6. The staff come and tell you it’s breakfast. We all go for breakfast”. Another person added “I want to move. We are treated like children”.
Although improvements in people’s experience were noted, we identified the quality of care being delivered continued to fall below the expected standards.