Charing House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 3 July 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this inspection on 20 May 2025. During this inspection we looked at the key questions of Safe, Caring and Well-led. We carried out the inspection to follow up on the shortfalls we found at our last visit. Charing House is a service which provides personal care and accommodation for up to 88 people. The service is set over 3 floors, with the ground and first floor accommodating people with health conditions that required ongoing care, or people living with dementia. The top floor is a designated living area for people with a learning disability or autistic people.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture (RSRCRC)’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Although we had no concerns about the care people were receiving on the ground and first floor of Charing House, we found the model of care and setting on the top floor did not always maximise people’s choice, control and independence. Care was not always person-centred or promoted people’s dignity, privacy and human rights. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff did not always ensure people using living on the top floor led confident, inclusive and empowered lives. Some people had been inappropriately placed meaning they had limited opportunity to interact or converse with their peers and although people living elsewhere in the service had opportunities to go out into the community and were supported with their independence, it was not the same for people on the top floor. Trips were organised for people but they were infrequent and not individualised to the person.

People’s medicines were safely stored and administered and where people required external professional input into their care this was sought and provided.

People lived in an environment that was clean and well-maintained and the staff providing care were well trained and competent in their role.

While staff provided kind, person-centred care to people they supported, they did not always uphold the principles of RSRCRC. In particular, people living on the top floor were not consistently treated as individuals with their own rights. They were not fully included in decision-making or given opportunities to shape their care in ways that reflected their age and abilities. This was because the provider and registered manager did not have a good understanding of the RSRCRC guidance and how it should be applied.

Staff had gone through a robust recruitment process prior to being recruited and staff said they felt supported by management and felt comfortable raising ideas and suggestions.

We found the service was in breach of 3 regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, person-centred care and good governance.