The Chimes Residential Home

Updated 24 July 2026

Date of Inspection 27 July to 27 August 2026. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people living with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.

The provider was previously found in breach of the legal requirements relating to Good Governance. During this inspection, we identified further concerns and found the provider remained in breach of Good Governance, as well as additional legal requirements relating to Safe Care and Treatment and Safeguarding Service Users from Abuse and Improper Treatment.

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.

People were not consistently protected from avoidable harm. Risks, safeguarding concerns and changes in people's needs were not always identified, assessed, monitored or responded to effectively. Significant incidents and professional advice were not always communicated appropriately, and systems for learning from concerns and improving practice were ineffective.

There were insufficient numbers of staff to consistently meet people's needs safely and in a timely way. This resulted in delays in support and reduced opportunities for meaningful engagement and person-centred care. Medicines management, risk management and safety monitoring arrangements did not provide assurance that people were receiving safe care and treatment.

People's needs were assessed and people had access to healthcare professionals and support to maintain their physical health. However, care records did not always accurately reflect people's current needs, risks and preferences, and people were not consistently involved in reviewing their care and support. Care was not always delivered in line with people's assessed needs or wishes, and professional advice was not always followed. The provider did not effectively monitor outcomes or respond promptly when people's needs changed. Systems relating to consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were also not always effective.

People and relatives generally spoke positively about staff and staff knew people well and understood their preferences and routines. However, staffing pressures affected people's experiences of care, limiting opportunities for meaningful interaction, personalised support and timely responses to people's needs.

People's individual wishes, preferences and aspirations were not always reflected in the care they received. Opportunities to promote independence, choice, social engagement and wellbeing were inconsistent, and some people experienced limited stimulation and meaningful activity.

Leadership, governance and quality assurance systems were ineffective. Leaders had not embedded a positive learning culture, and concerns identified at previous inspections had not been fully addressed or sustained. People, relatives and staff had limited opportunities to influence the service, and systems failed to identify and respond to many of the issues found during this inspection.

As a result, the provider could not demonstrate effective oversight of risks, quality, performance or outcomes, or provide assurance that people consistently received safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care.

Updated 24 July 2026

People told us their preferences were not always reflected in day-to-day care. Some said they did not receive their preferred bath or shower and were not always able to go to bed at their preferred time. Others described delays in receiving assistance. One person told us, “I get up when they [staff] say so and goes to bed when they [staff] say so, often going to bed too late because I must wait for medication to be given and it is often late due to lack of staff.”

Relatives also shared mixed experiences. While some described the care as "brilliant" and praised staff for their kindness, others raised concerns that important aspects of people's identity and preferences were not always recognised.

People's and relatives' experiences of the service were mixed. Many spoke positively about staff, describing them as kind and respectful. One person told us, "Staff make me feel safe." A relative also said they felt their family member was safe, well cared for and well looked after in the home. However, some people raised concerns about their safety. One person told us they felt unsafe, particularly at night, because they did not believe night staff understood their medical condition. Others felt there were not enough staff available to meet people's needs safely. One person told us, "I don't feel safe as there is not enough staff working in the home," while another person told us, "I don't feel safe in the other lounge as there is not enough staff on duty.”

Some people lacked confidence that concerns would be listened to or acted upon. One person told us, "There is no point, no one listens or cares," while another said, "When I have complained about things, nothing gets done.”

People's feedback indicated they were not always involved in decisions about their care and support and that their preferences were not consistently reflected in practice. People told us they had not been involved in developing or reviewing their care plans, meaning they could not always be assured their care reflected their wishes, preferences and current needs.

People's experiences of food and mealtimes were mixed. While some were satisfied with the food provided, others felt they had little choice. One person told us, "You don't have a choice, you just have what you are given." Another person said the food was “not good.”

Overall, people's feedback indicated that while staff were often kind and caring, people did not consistently feel listened to, safe, involved in decisions about their care, or assured that their choices, preferences and wellbeing would always be prioritised.