Chaucer House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 32 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s daily care records did not demonstrate how staff delivered person centred care consistently. Information in daily notes was limited and task orientated. For example, one person’s daily notes detailed ‘Received [person] lying in bed, awake and in good condition.’ The language used by staff was not person centred. People’s care plans referred to other people’s names and did not consistently refer to the person the care plan was for.

People’s care plans did consider their protected characteristics under the Equality Act, such as detailing if they practised a religion. One person’s care plan detailed their preference to not eat pork due to their religion. However, daily records did not demonstrate how staff respected people’s preferences when delivering their care and support.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People did not always receive continuity of care. The regular staff team was supported by agency staff. People’s relatives told us they did not have confidence in the agency staff. One relative told us, ‘They [provider] use a lot of agency and they don’t know people well enough, then they are gone again.’

The provider did not always work well with partners to ensure people’s needs were met. The provider had not ensured they implemented recommendations from partners. For example, one person needed additional staff support, but staff had not completed daily notes sufficiently to evidence why additional support was required.

Whilst staff had completed training in dementia care, they had not completed training to ensure they could support people who would experienced distressed or anxious behaviours. Records demonstrated not all staff had the competence and skills for the group of people they support.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s care and support plans were did not always contain information that was accurate. For example, people’s care and support plans referenced other people’s names.

People’s relatives told us they were informed if there were changes to their loves one care and support. People could access information in different formats where there was a preference or need, for example, information was available in large font or picture format.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to raise a complaint; however, they did not feel confident doing so. One person told us, ‘There’s no point complaining or raising a query, [registered manager] decides who [registered manager] thinks is responsible and deals with it in an inappropriate manner…... If I tried to go above [registered managers] head it would not be listened to.’ Another person told us, ‘I feel I can make suggestions, whether it goes further is a different matter.’

People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint and we reviewed a number of complaints that had been made. Whilst the provider had responded to complaints and the outcome was recorded, changes had not always been implemented. For example, one person made a complaint in November 2025 detailing staff were ‘rough’ with them during personal care. During the inspection people told us staff were ‘rough’ or felt rushed during their personal care. There was a lack of learning from this complaint.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care and support was not consistently accessible,timelyand in line with best practice, qualitystandardsand legal requirements. For example, we found people were going long periods of time without being supported to reposition where the need had been identified. We also found people were not being supported in line with best practice guidance in relation to dementia and supporting people who experience distress and agitation.

People were supported to use appropriate mobility aids, however people told us there were delays in getting equipment and was dependant on staffing whether they could be supported with their preferences. One person told us, ‘When I first moved in they could take me for a bath twice a week, depending on who was on. It took a while to get a shower chair, more than a year.’

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity, however some people did not always feel empowered by providers and staff to give their views. One person told us they felt their concerns would not be listened to.

People also told us their experience of care depended on which staff were on shift and what time of day its was. One person told us, “Some of the staff are nice. Night staff are not so nice, they don’t speak very good English. They don’t say please or thank you.’ Another person told us ‘A luxury care home should have a minimum standard, kinder tones and words. One [staff] has watched TV during my personal care.’

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People who were approaching the end of their life had care plans in place to guidance staff on their preferences. However, we were not assured that all staff would follow the care plans. At the time of the inspection there were not people who were actively being supporting with end of life care.

Where people had a DNACPR in place this was recorded in their care plan. DNACPR meansif your heart or breathing stops your healthcare team will not try to restart it. The decisions people made in relation to this was recorded in their care plan with the support of families where appropriate.