- Care home
Chase House Limited
Assessment report published 10 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 02 to 25 June 2026.
Chase House is a residential care home with nursing provision. The service supports older people, those living with dementia, physical disabilities, nursing needs and mental health support needs. The service can support up to 50 people. At the time we started our assessment, there were 34 people living at the service.
At our last inspection, the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, person-centred care, ensuring consent and governance. At this inspection, some improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and ensuring consent. However, the provider remains in breach of legal regulations relating to person-centred care and governance. As a result of the improvements made, the service is no longer in special measures. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan in response to the concerns identified at this assessment.
There have been recent and significant changes in leadership and provider oversight at Chase House. Following the previous registered manager’s resignation, the provider commissioned an external management organisation. In May 2026, this organisation assumed full operational control of the service and introduced a new leadership structure. The leadership team told us this transition occurred without a formal handover and that they inherited limited access to existing systems and records. This meant that alongside delivering care, the provider needed to establish oversight systems and rebuild governance processes.
At this inspection, the provider had taken steps to stabilise the service, including improving medication management, addressing environmental risks identified at the previous inspection and strengthening staffing arrangements. Governance meetings and audits had been introduced, with a clearer focus on identifying risks and improving oversight. These actions demonstrated progress in responding to concerns and improving safety.
However, these improvements were not yet embedded, and there remained a gap between systems and practice. Risks identified in care plans were not always reflected in care delivery, including inconsistent repositioning and supervision. Governance systems had not identified issues such as gaps in recording, failures to escalate safeguarding concerns and inconsistent care. Care delivery was variable and at times task-led, with delays in support and limited meaningful engagement observed. A staff member said, “We have enough staff… but don’t often have time to spend with people in a meaningful way.” Overall, further work was required to ensure changes were consistently applied and people received safe, effective and person-centred care.
People's experience of this service
People’s feedback about the service was mixed. Some people spoke positively about staff and described them as kind, caring and supportive. One person told us, “The staff are excellent… kind, caring, considerate and calm.” Relatives also said people felt safe living at the service. One relative told us, “Yes, I feel [my relative] is very safe, or I would not be keeping them there.”
However, feedback also reflected inconsistency in people’s experiences. Some people described times when staff were present but not always engaging with them, and others described periods of low interaction and limited meaningful activity. People also said they were not always involved in their care, and some were unclear about who was managing the service. A person told us, “There are always staff about but they are not talking much.”
We also used a structured observation tool to understand the experiences of people who were unable to consistently share verbal feedback. This reflected the feedback we received. While there were examples of positive interaction, these were not consistent across the service. People were at times left sitting in communal areas without engagement, and staff often focused on completing tasks rather than interacting with people.