Chataway Care Home
- Care home
- 14 beds
- No nursing
- Registered since 2012
- Whetstone, Leicestershire, East Midlands
Good
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
4 ratings
First rated Requires improvement in 2015, most recently Good in August 2026.
2 months
since the latest rating was published.
116 of 148
rated care homes in Leicestershire are rated Good, like this one.
Chataway Care Home: inspection record
Rated Good in August 2026.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
- RI Whetstone Grange Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
- – The Manse Not yet rated, 0.3 miles away
- RI Woodway House Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away
- G Tavey House Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Enderby Grange Good, 0.8 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 7 August 2026 (assessment visit 24 March 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
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.
- Safe Good
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary
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'.
-
Safe
Good
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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
-
Effective
Good
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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
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 as good.
At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
Good
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good.
At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
Good
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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
- Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Jacqueline Payne
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service without nursing
- Who it supports
- Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)6 inspection reports, latest 31 July 2019. Latest assessment published 7 August 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
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 07545533 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Leicestershire County Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Leicestershire County Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0116 305 0004, Monday to Thursday 8.30am to 5pm, Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm
- Contact adult social care online
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Leicestershire County Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Chataway Care Home provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists Chataway Care Home as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does Chataway Care Home have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 14 beds at Chataway Care Home.
- When was Chataway Care Home last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Chataway Care Home was published on 7 August 2026.
- Who runs Chataway Care Home?
- Chataway Care Home is run by Chataway Residential Home Limited.
- What is Chataway Care Home's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 7 August 2026.
Contact
- Phone
- 0116 284 8306
- Address
- 4 East Avenue, Whetstone, Leicester, LE8 6JG Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
- RI Whetstone Grange Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
- – The Manse Not yet rated, 0.3 miles away
- RI Woodway House Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away
- G Tavey House Good, 0.5 miles away
- G Enderby Grange Good, 0.8 miles away