Chestnuts Retirement Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 19 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

Chestnuts retirement home is a care home registered to support up to 14 people. There were 12 people using the service at the time of inspection. The service is a small, family-run care home where people receive support in a homely environment.

Who the service is for

Chestnuts Retirement Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for older people.

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment on 22 and 27 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.

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. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions; they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Staff understood safeguarding, risk management and people's individual support needs. There was an open culture where concerns could be raised and learning from incidents and day-to-day events was discussed. Risks were managed in a way that promoted independence and choice while helping people to remain safe. Medicines were generally managed safely, with secure storage arrangements, accurate stock checks and systems to support safe administration. However, improvements were required to strengthen aspects of medicines documentation and ensure care records provided staff with clear guidance regarding people's health conditions, support needs and associated risks. Staffing arrangements enabled people to receive care when required and recruitment processes were in place to support safer recruitment. However, recruitment records did not always demonstrate that employment histories for staff had been fully explored in line with the provider's policy. Feedback from people and relatives was consistently positive, with many describing the service as a safe place to live.

Assessment and review processes helped ensure support reflected people's individual needs. Staff knew people well and demonstrated a good understanding of their preferences, routines and how they wished to be supported. Relatives spoke positively about the knowledge and skills of staff and the support provided to maintain people's health and wellbeing. Training, induction and supervision arrangements were in place and relevant to staff roles. Choice and independence were promoted, with people supported to make decisions about their day-to-day lives.

Kind and compassionate care was evident throughout the service. Staff knew people well and understood what was important to them. People's dignity and wellbeing were promoted and they were supported to make choices about their daily lives and the care they received. Positive relationships had developed between people and staff, with relatives frequently describing the home as warm, welcoming and family-like. Support was provided in a way that respected people's preferences and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.

People were placed at the centre of their care and support and were encouraged to make choices about how they lived their lives. Care planning was person-centred and reflected people's preferences and interests. Staff knew people well and worked alongside them, and where appropriate those important to them, to review and adapt support as needs changed. People were supported to express their views and be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff promoted independence, choice and control and made adjustments to meet individual needs. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident that these would be listened to and acted upon. The service demonstrated a commitment to providing personalised care that responded to people's changing needs and supported positive outcomes.

Leaders promoted a positive, person-centred culture and were committed to providing compassionate care that focused on people's individual needs. There was a clear commitment to involving people in decisions about their care and supporting them to lead fulfilling lives. Systems and processes were in place to monitor quality, safety and performance across the service and had supported a number of positive outcomes for people. However, opportunities remained to strengthen governance arrangements to ensure they consistently identified and addressed all areas requiring improvement. Some of the issues identified during the inspection, including aspects of care planning, medicines documentation, recruitment records and internal communication processes, had not been fully recognised through existing quality assurance systems. Leaders were open and responsive to feedback and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement. They took action in response to the findings of the inspection and showed a willingness to strengthen oversight and further develop the quality of the service.