Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge

Requires improvementpublished 30 March 2026, 6 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2019

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, respectful care but serious staffing, safety, medicines and management problems.

Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 November 2019. They spoke with four people and four staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.

People said they felt safe and liked the home. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, personalised care plans, access to health professionals, activities and opportunities for people to make choices.

However, there were too few staff, especially at night and at weekends. The home was not always clean or well maintained, medicines records and practices needed improvement, and quality checks had not led to necessary changes.

The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People told inspectors that staff were caring and kind. Inspectors saw friendly relationships and respectful support.

    “Staff demonstrated a caring approach towards people and there was evidence of friendly relationships between staff and people.” from the report
  • Choice and independence

    People were supported to make decisions, manage aspects of their daily lives and personalise their rooms. Staff respected privacy and independence.

    “People were able to make their own decisions.” from the report
  • Access to healthcare

    People were helped to use health services and staff worked with professionals to support their health needs.

    “People were supported to access health services, such as the doctor, diabetic nurse, dentist and community mental health nurse.” from the report
  • Activities and relationships

    People were supported to attend local groups, go on outings and maintain important relationships.

    “People were encouraged to engage in activities such as local art and social groups.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Not enough staff

    serious

    There was only one waking staff member at night. At times, people could not go out when they wanted, and one person had to go to hospital alone during the night.

    “There were insufficient members of staff to meet people's needs, particularly during the night.” from the report
  • Unsafe and unclean areas

    serious

    Inspectors found dirty and slippery outside steps, dirty facilities, trip hazards, a damp and cold conservatory and other maintenance problems.

    “People lived in an environment that was not well maintained and as such may not be safe for them.” from the report
  • Medicines checks

    serious

    Some medicines records were incomplete or not double-signed. Liquid medicines had no opening dates, and there was no recent medicines audit at the time of inspection.

    “Despite this, medicines practices required improvement.” from the report
  • Staff supervision

    needs fixing

    Some staff had gone several months without supervision, despite the provider's policy. Staff also said supervision did not always lead to change.

    “However, one staff member had not had a supervision since April 2019, another since May 2019 and a further since June 2019.” from the report
  • Weak quality monitoring

    serious

    Audits did not consistently identify problems or ensure that agreed actions were completed. This included issues with the environment, medicines, fire safety and staff supervision.

    “Despite this, these had not always identified the areas that required improvement, such as the environment, cleanliness, medicines practices and supervisions.” from the report
  • Goals not always supported

    needs fixing

    Care plans recorded people's aims, but inspectors found little evidence that staff were helping people work towards some of them.

    “However, although people had good information in their care plans, there was lack of evidence of staff always responding to people's wishes.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many staff are now on duty overnight and at weekends, and how do you ensure people can attend appointments or go out when they wish?
  2. 02What checks are now made on medicines records, liquid medicine opening dates and self-medication?
  3. 03What work has been completed to improve cleanliness, the slippery outside steps, lighting, carpets and the damp conservatory?
  4. 04How often do staff now receive supervision, and how are concerns raised in supervision acted on?
  5. 05What progress has been made on helping each person achieve the goals recorded in their care plan?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating of Good had deteriorated to Requires Improvement in Safe, Effective and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2017

Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities supporting people's independence.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 18 April 2017. Inspectors spoke with four people, staff, the managers and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines information, rotas, audits and policies.

The home supported up to 10 people with mental health needs who did not require nursing care. Six people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found people were safe, had enough staff support, received medicines as prescribed and had personalised care plans.

People were treated with respect and supported to make choices and develop independence. They took part in activities, outings, education, work and hobbies. The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, although the earlier recommendation about meaningful activities had been addressed.

What inspectors praised
  • Meaningful activities

    People were supported to take part in varied activities, outings, holidays, education, hobbies and voluntary work. This addressed the recommendation from the previous inspection.

    “During this visit, we found that people were active and participated in a variety of activities and events that met their social and physical needs.” from the report
  • Personalised care

    Care plans included people's preferences, allergies and support needs. Staff knew people well and updated plans when needs changed.

    “People's needs continued to be assessed and care plans were produced identifying how support needed to be provided.” from the report
  • Promoting independence

    Staff supported people with cooking, cleaning, laundry, shopping and travel, stepping in only when needed for safety.

    “People were supported by staff to undertake tasks and activities aimed at encouraging and promoting their independence.” from the report
  • Good management checks

    The manager carried out regular audits of areas such as medicines, care records, infection control and staff development. Action plans recorded what needed to be done.

    “The registered manager continued to understand the principles of good quality assurance and used these principles to critically review the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How will you involve my relative in reviewing their personalised care plan and risk assessments?
  2. 02How will you support my relative to take part in activities that match their interests and goals?
  3. 03How do you check that medicines are given safely and that any self-administration remains safe?
  4. 04What training, supervision and support will the staff caring for my relative receive?
  5. 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint or give feedback, and how will it be acted on?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the report says the home remained Good overall and in each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge

3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. December 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge →

  2. May 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Welcome House - Nickleby Lodge →

  3. June 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
Claire T., about Usha V.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
Anthea D., about Theresa L.
See live-in carers near MedwayProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.