Rated Care Homes

Welcome House - The Chestnuts

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 5 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Inadequate to Requires improvement.

  • This month

    The latest rating was published.

  • 16 of 59

    rated care homes in Medway are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Welcome House - The Chestnuts: inspection record

Care home, 15 beds, Medway

Rated Requires improvement in October 2026, up from Inadequate.

Welcome House - The Chestnuts: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Rochester House (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Watts Healthcare Ltd (Good, 0.3 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Rochester House Good, 0.3 miles away
  3. G
    Watts Healthcare Ltd Good, 0.3 miles away
  4. RI
    Sinon House Therapeutic Unit Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  5. –
    St Williams Not yet rated, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Medway

See all care homes in Rochester

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 13 October 2026 (assessment visit 24 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Inspection: 15 September 2026 to 22 September 2026. Welcome House- The Chestnuts is a residential care home registered to support up to 15 people living with a mental health diagnosis. Not everyone supported by this service received the regulated activity of personal care. This assessment looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our assessment, the provider was supporting 11 people of whom 6 received the regulated activity of personal care.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

The inspection was conducted to follow up an inspection in August 2025 where the service was rated “Inadequate” and multiple breaches of regulation identified. Following this inspection, the rating has changed to “Requires Improvement”. Although improvements in the quality and safety of care had been made, we identified repeated breaches of regulation in relation to person-centred care, dignity and respect, safe care and treatment and good governance.

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. At the time of the assessment, the service was supporting a small number of people with a learning disability. The provider had not fully considered ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ to ensure people received care that was person-centred or supported them to overcome barriers faced in society.

People were not consistently empowered to achieve any goals and aspirations through the care they received. Although some people had goals around living independently in the future, gaining voluntary employment or maintaining personal relationships, there was no clear plan of how this could be achieved. Leaders and staff were not consistently aware that people had any goals, or the support they might need to achieve these.

The model of care did not promote people’s independence. Even though most people could undertake some level of daily tasks for themselves and expressed enjoyment in doing so, there was little evidence that this was happening or that people were being supported to learn skills.

People’s physical health needs were met well, and there were appropriate levels of guidance and monitoring to support people’s health and wellbeing. Where people’s health needs changed, appropriate advice was sought and referrals made to ensure they could be supported safely.

There were sufficient staff employed to support people, who were safely recruited and appropriately training to support people’s needs. They were knowledgeable about people’s wellbeing and about their responsibilities to safeguard people from harm.

People were treated with kindness, however interactions were largely task based rather than staff spending quality time with people or discussing their wellbeing. There had been an increase in activities since our last inspection, but these were largely undertaken as groups and did not always reflect people’s abilities or social needs. There was lack of consideration as to individual wishes and preferences such as around activities and food, or how people could be empowered to participate in their wider community or culture. There was limited evidence around how people had been involved in reviewing their care to ensure it continued to meet their wishes.

The environment was largely well maintained, however the standard of cleanliness continued to fall below expectations in certain areas. Risks were posed to people through smoking in the building which had not been well assessed or monitored.

There were a system of audits and checks on the quality of care, but these were not always effective and had not identified areas found within our inspection.

There was no Registered Manager in position at the time of our inspection. Whilst the leadership arrangements had embedded some improvements, leaders themselves were not always knowledgeable about people or had a clear vision for the service. There was a lack of clear focus on best practice mental health care, or how care could be delivered holistically to ensure people had the best possible quality of care.

The service was previously placed into “Special Measures” which is an enhanced level of monitoring due to risks to the safety of people. Following this inspection, sufficient improvements have been made, and the service has been removed from special measures. However, we have requested an action plan from the provider setting out the steps they will take to ensure further improvements are made.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe and care treatment

  2. Effective

    No rating

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred-care and dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

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

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 13 October 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 13 October 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 13 October 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 13 October 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.

Registration details

Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Mental Health

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

6 inspection reports, latest 10 January 2020. Latest assessment published 13 October 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Provider
Toqeer Aslam
Ownership type
Individual

Toqeer Aslam runs 5 services, all in the South East. 2 are rated Good or Outstanding and 3 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Toqeer Aslam

  1. G
    Welcome House - Gillingham Homes Good. Care home, Medway
  2. G
    Welcome House - Ruby Lodge Good. Care home, Kent
  3. RI
    Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge Requires improvement. Care home, Medway
  4. I
    Welcome House - Leeza Court Inadequate. Care home, Medway

Getting help from Medway Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Welcome House - The Chestnuts provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Welcome House - The Chestnuts as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Welcome House - The Chestnuts have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 15 beds at Welcome House - The Chestnuts.
When was Welcome House - The Chestnuts last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Welcome House - The Chestnuts was published on 13 October 2026.
Who runs Welcome House - The Chestnuts?
Welcome House - The Chestnuts is run by Toqeer Aslam. It runs 5 services, all in the South East.
What is Welcome House - The Chestnuts's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 13 October 2026.

Contact

Phone
01634 842084
Address
10 Watts Avenue, Rochester, ME1 1RX Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Rochester House (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Watts Healthcare Ltd (Good, 0.3 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Rochester House Good, 0.3 miles away
  3. G
    Watts Healthcare Ltd Good, 0.3 miles away
  4. RI
    Sinon House Therapeutic Unit Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  5. –
    St Williams Not yet rated, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Medway

See all care homes in Rochester