Chapel Lodge

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 4 September 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 10 August 2026. Chapel Lodge is a care home providing residential and nursing care to older people, including people living with dementia. We carried out an assessment looking at all the quality statements and all key questions. Our decision to inspect the service was due to the length of time since our last rated inspection and due to concerns we had received in relation to fire safety. The home can accommodate 64 people. At the time of our inspection 55 people were using the service. The home was previously rated good and had changed to requires improvement. We identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, person centred care and good governance. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan detailing how they will address these concerns.

Risks associated with people's care were identified but not always managed in line with their needs or to keep people safe. We found care plans gave basic information regarding the use of hoist equipment and slings were not identified for individual people. Daily records and charts did not always evidence care and support had been delivered in line with people’s assessed needs and preferences. Accident analysis was in place and lessons learned were documented to improve practice. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff received training to ensure appropriate actions were taken if any concerns were raised. People and relatives told us there were insufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. We observed occasions where people had to wait long periods of time to be assisted. Staff were recruited safely and felt supported by the management team. We found parts of the home required cleaning to ensure effective infection control. Some parts of the home required repair to ensure they could be cleaned effectively. We identified some minor concerns regarding medicine management, which were swiftly addressed by the management team.

People's needs were assessed, however there was no evidence that people and relatives were involved in reviews about their care. People had access to nutritious food and snacks were provided throughout the day. Staff worked well together as a team and people had access to healthcare professionals as required.

People's care plans were not always person centred. We saw staff involved people when carrying out tasks, asking their permission and explaining what they were doing. However, care was not always delivered in line with people’s care plans.

Staff were kind and caring and were friendly and approachable. People had access to an activity co-ordinator who provided social stimulation.

People had access to a complaints procedure and concerns were addressed in line with the providers policy. Signage was in place to help people navigate around the service. People had limited access to outside space.

There was a governance system in place and audits were carried out to check standards. However, these had not always been effective in identifying the areas of concern we found during the inspection.