The Chase

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care and treating people with dignity and respect.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Although we observed some kind and caring interactions between staff and people, people were not always treated in a dignified way. For example, a person who was cared for in bed and could not verbalise had previously shared their room with a person who had since passed away. Their bedroom contained the person’s old possessions. A walking frame had been thrown on top of a bedframe and a hoist was left at the bottom of the bedframe which belonged to the person who had passed away. This was undignified for the person and a constant reminder the other person was no longer there. We fed this back to the registered manager and deputy manager who agreed this was not caring or dignified.

Some of the language used to describe people was not respectful. At lunch time a staff member was telling us about the usual routine for people. They said, “These are less mobile ones” when describing people who remained in the lounge eating their lunch on tables in front of them.

We observed some good interactions between staff and people and staff took the time to listen and engage with people in a meaningful way. For example, a person said they were not okay and thought they were going to die. The registered manager responded to the person in a caring manner and comforted the person appropriately. A person was wandering from room to room. A staff member told us the person found it hard to settle and took the person’s hand with their consent and walked with them, talking to them.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

There was limited information in people’s care plans about their life histories, personal goals or any aspirations. We asked the registered manager how people were empowered to enjoy personal relationships. They said, “No one expressed this. We would have to look into it if that happened.”

The registered manager told us 1 person frequently complained about aspects of the service. We asked the registered manager if they had tried to involve the person more so they could become more independent and engaged with their daily living. The registered manager said, “We can have the discussion about them being involved in food. It depends on what they would like to do. (Person) never expresses wanting to cook, they just like to critique” There was a lack of pro-active engagement at the service to encourage and support people to have any aspirations or goals.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

It was unclear why certain restrictions had been imposed on people. For example, a lot of people were checked hourly throughout the night but there was no information as to why or what the associated risks were around this. The registered manager initially told us all people were not allowed to drink alcohol or eat alone in the service. They said, “(Person) for example is an alcoholic and drinks a lot. We told (person) we don’t allow alcohol in the service as another person has a drinking problem. We also explained if (person) turned up drunk they wouldn’t be allowed back in. We have a few here who had drinking issues. If (another person) turned round and said I want a can of cider we would discourage it.” However, the registered manager later told us people are able to drink alcohol, but this would be discouraged, and people could eat alone, and they would risk assess this. However, there were no risk assessments or information around how assessments had been completed around this. There was a blanket approach to managing risk which compromised people’s potential choice and independence.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

A person’s care plan described them in an undignified way stating they could ‘get really sarcastic and grumpy’ and they would ‘storm off when unhappy’. Guidance to support the person lacked any meaningful detail about how staff should support the person with their individual needs stating, ‘Staff to reassure (person) if they need support with cognition and memory. Monitor (person’s) moods and speak to the manager with any concerns. Staff continue to support and defuse the situation’. There was no information about how staff should diffuse situations specifically or how to respond to the person to minimise their distress. The guidance lacked any meaningful direction or instruction. People could not be assured they would receive support and kindness when they needed it.

The provider did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff were not provided the information or support they needed to meet people’s individual needs.

In a team meeting in July 2025 after our site visit, the registered manager told staff they should be questioning why there were gaps in bowel charts and that not one single staff had questioned this or raised concerns to management. This did not demonstrate they took responsibility for their own failures in the oversight of this area or that they had a clear process of responsibility within the workforce for monitoring this. They went on to tell staff, ‘Paperwork isn’t there for the sake of it – it’s there to keep people safe. If we identify that staff are not completing or responding to paperwork, then we will be taking action as it will be deemed that they are putting people at risk.’