Chataway Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 7 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried out this assessment on 7 and 9 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

A culture of openness and transparency supported people’s safety, by ensuring any were assessed and regularly reviewed. Where incidents or accidents did occur, such as a person falling, these were reflected upon to ensure any lessons were learnt, and measures to mitigate potential risk were followed. Records evidenced there were very few incidents or accidents at the service, and no safeguarding concerns had been reported. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of safeguarding and the importance of raising any concerns.

Staff consistently spoke well of the service, which demonstrated the openness and commitment of staff in working collectively to achieve good outcomes for people. A member of staff told us “It’s a privilege to work in the home and with people who work as a team. Another member of staff said, “Team members are really supportive, they are an amazing team.”

People were supported by a consistent team of staff, employed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs. Staff had undergone a robust recruitment process and had the necessary skills and knowledge to provide good quality and safe care. Staff received ongoing support through continuous training, assessment of their competence, and regular supervision and appraisal. Staff spoke positively of the training, a member of staff told us, “I’m very happy with the provision of training.”

Records and our observations demonstrated the environment and systems such as fire safety and gas were well-maintained.

Safe systems and practices for the management and administration of medicine were in place, including auditing, which promoted people’s safety, health and well-being.

Assessments of people’s needs were comprehensive and used to develop tailored care plans. Assessment tools were used to determine key areas of risk, including skin integrity, hydration and nutrition. People’s care was kept under review and any changes were recorded, and where appropriate referrals were made to relevant health and social care professionals.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. A DoLS authorisation had been appropriately applied for, which didn’t contain any conditions. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Care records, including daily notes and care plans emphasised the importance of staff upholding people’s dignity and respect. Staff had access to information to enable them to fully understand people’s needs, including information as to their background, including work and family life. This enabled staff to better understand what was important to people and provide person-centred care. Staff recognised the importance of encouraging and collaborating with people to maintain their independence. Care plans detailed what a person could do themselves, and areas in which support was required.

Care records evidenced people accessed a range of health care services, and where appropriate family members supported with attending appointments.

Systems and processes were in place to provide feedback about the service, including complaints and concerns. No complaints had been raised. The registered manager was highly visible within the service, spending time with both people and staff, which provided opportunities for them to receive feedback, including family members when they visited.

The provider had a clear shared vision and strategy, and the service was well supported by the registered manager and staff team. Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

The registered manager collaborated with people, their family members, and staff to build a culture which focused on providing good quality and person-centred care. A member of staff told us, “[Registered manager] is always involving families and communicating with them. Always updating and keeping people informed and asking them for their views.” Staff consistently referred to the registered manager as ‘supportive,’ ‘a good communicator,’ ‘responsive’ and’ fantastic'.