Chase House Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance. Improvements were found at this assessment; however, these were not consistently embedded and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. Governance systems had not always identified or addressed concerns relating to quality, safety and risk management.
 

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The culture of the service had improved since our last inspection. Following changes in leadership, staff described a more open approach and told us concerns were being listened to.
However, this was not yet consistently reflected in the quality of interactions people experienced. While we observed some positive and respectful engagement, this varied. At times, interactions were brief or focused on completing tasks rather than meaningful engagement, particularly during busier periods. This meant that although expectations for person-centred care had been set, these were not yet consistently embedded in day-to-day interactions with people. A relative told us, “There’s not much one-to-one for residents.”

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in relation to leadership and the culture of care. During this inspection, improvements had been made following significant changes within the management team. However, at the time of inspection, there was no registered manager in post to be legally responsible and held to account for the service in line with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The new management team demonstrated awareness of the issues identified at the last inspection and described their focus on stabilising the service and improving the quality of care. Staff told us there had been improvements in how concerns were listened to and described a more open and supportive approach under the current leadership. A staff member said, “Before they wouldn’t listen, now they do.”

However, these improvements were not yet consistently reflected in the quality of interactions people experienced. While we observed some positive and compassionate interactions, this was not consistent. At times, staff engagement was brief or task-focused, particularly during busier periods.
This meant that although leaders had begun to create a more open and supportive culture, this was not yet fully embedded to ensure consistently compassionate, person-centred care.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they now felt more confident raising concerns and described a more open culture. Systems were in place to support freedom to speak up, and we saw evidence that some concerns were listened to and acted upon. A staff member said, “We can go to [Service Manager] with any concerns.”

The provider valued diversity within their workforce and worked towards an inclusive and fair culture. Staff did not raise any concerns in relation to equality, diversity or inclusion and spoke positively about support from the new management team. Staff described improvements in communication and told us they felt able to raise concerns and contribute to service improvements.

At our previous inspection, we identified significant concerns in relation to governance and oversight, including ineffective systems to monitor risks and drive improvement. During this inspection, although changes in leadership had occurred and governance processes had been introduced, these were not yet consistently embedded or effective.

The provider’s new leadership team told us that in recent months there had been instability in leadership, including the absence of a registered manager, and that they assumed control of the service in May 2026. They told us there had not been a formal handover and that they had limited access to existing systems and records. This meant governance arrangements had to be established alongside ongoing service delivery.

While audits, meetings and oversight processes had been introduced, these did not consistently identify or address issues. For example, care plan inconsistencies, gaps in repositioning records, unrecognised safeguarding concerns and previously identified environmental risks had not been effectively managed through governance systems.

This meant that at the time of the inspection, oversight was not always effective, and we could not be assured that risks were consistently identified, monitored and addressed.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of the need to collaborate and work in partnership, supporting joined-up care for people. They shared information and learning with partners and worked collaboratively to support improvement. There was evidence of referrals to healthcare professionals and involvement from external services where required, which supported care delivery and ensured people had access to additional expertise.

At our previous inspection, we identified concerns in relation to governance, oversight and the provider’s ability to drive improvement. During this inspection, the provider demonstrated a willingness to improve and respond to these concerns.

The provider had taken action to address issues identified, including introducing governance systems, increasing oversight and addressing environmental risks. Leaders were open about the challenges within the service and had begun to implement changes.

However, these improvements were at an early stage, and there was limited evidence at the time of inspection that changes had been embedded or were consistently impacting practice. This meant that while there was a clear intention to improve, further time and sustained application would be required to achieve consistent and lasting improvement.