Shipley Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider ensured care was largely person-centred, with care plans that were detailed, informative, and tailored to people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff had access to relevant, up-to-date information which enabled them to deliver safe and appropriate care.
We saw that care plans included highly specific personal details about each person, such as their routines, communication preferences, cultural background, and emotional needs. This information helped ensure care was delivered in a way that respected each person’s identity and promoted their independence and comfort.
Staff were familiar with the content of care plans and demonstrated good awareness of people’s needs in practice. This was evident through observations of kind compassionate support and the strong relationships staff had built with people. People using the service and their relatives consistently told us they felt their care was personalised and that staff knew them well.
There was evidence that care plans were reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs changed, although in a small number of cases, updates had not yet been fully reflected across all documentation. However, staff were still able to describe changes in support accurately, suggesting communication between teams remained strong even when written updates were in progress.
Overall, people were supported in ways that reflected their choices and promoted their wellbeing. Care planning processes supported good outcomes for people, and there was a clear emphasis on ensuring care remained responsive to individual needs.
However, we did see that some care plans required additional detail, particularly around more specific areas of care, and there was a need for greater focus on capturing people’s end-of-life wishes. Addressing this would further enhance the person-centred approach and ensure that all aspects of care are planned in line with people’s preferences and future needs.
 

The provider demonstrated strong, well-established systems for supporting people as they moved between services, ensuring continuity of care and a smooth, safe experience during times of transition. We saw clear evidence of effective and efficient partnership working with a range of external professionals, including GPs, community nursing teams, hospital discharge planners, and emergency services.
Transitions into and out of the service were managed with sensitivity and attention to detail. Staff ensured that relevant medical and care information was communicated promptly and accurately, and people were well prepared before any move took place. Where people were admitted or discharged from hospital, the service maintained strong, proactive links with hospital staff, enabling swift and informed handovers. This reduced the risk of confusion, delays, or errors in care provision during these vulnerable periods.
We also noted positive relationships with emergency services, including paramedics and out-of-hours teams. Staff acted quickly and appropriately in emergency situations, and protocols were in place to ensure timely access to urgent care when needed. These strong external links helped reduce unnecessary hospital admissions and supported people to remain in the service safely wherever possible.
This level of coordinated working had a clear and positive impact on people's outcomes. It ensured that changes in care were well-managed, responsive, and person-centred, while also promoting people’s confidence and safety during transitions .
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The service had taken positive steps to ensure that people and their families had access to information in a way that was accessible, meaningful, and supportive of their understanding. Information was made available in a range of formats, including easy-read documents with simplified language and visual cues, as well as appropriate picture signage throughout the environment to support orientation for people living with dementia.
This inclusive approach helped people navigate their surroundings more independently and contributed to reducing confusion and anxiety, particularly for those with cognitive impairments.
Care planning information was also made accessible. Most of the people and relatives we spoke with told us they had been involved in the care planning process and felt informed about the support being delivered. Several relatives said they felt confident asking for access to care plans and knew who to speak to if they had questions or needed clarification. This transparency helped build trust and encouraged collaborative working between families and the care team.
People told us they felt listened to, and that their preferences were reflected in how care was delivered. One relative shared, “We’ve always been kept in the loop and feel part of the decisions, it makes a big difference knowing what’s happening and why.”
 

The provider demonstrated an exceptional commitment to listening to and involving people, their families, and staff in shaping the care and support provided. A wide range of inclusive and accessible methods were used to actively gather feedback and ensure that everyone had a voice.
People were encouraged to share their views through regular care reviews, informal one-to-one conversations, residents' meetings, and anonymous surveys or feedback forms, which were readily available throughout the home. Relatives told us they were regularly invited to give feedback, both in formal reviews and in day-to-day discussions with staff and managers. These interactions were not treated as a formality but were genuinely welcomed and used to drive continuous improvement.
People told us they felt confident that their feedback was not only listened to but acted upon. One person said, “They always ask how I’m doing and if anything can be better. If I say something, it gets done.” Relatives echoed this sentiment, describing a culture where communication was open, and their input was respected and valued. Many people we spoke with told they had “no complaints” about the care they received but explained they knew who the registered manager was and that they all knew how to raise a complaint if they needed to.
We saw clear evidence that feedback had directly influenced service improvements. For example, suggestions from residents and relatives had led to changes in activity planning, more personalised dining options, and adaptations to communal spaces to make them more homely and inclusive. These changes were then discussed and reviewed again with people, ensuring they remained relevant and meaningful.
Staff were also encouraged to contribute their ideas and observations. They told us they felt empowered and supported to raise concerns or suggest improvements, and that managers were approachable and responsive. This inclusive culture supported shared ownership of the service’s development and fostered a strong team ethos.
People were confident in their care, felt involved in decision-making, and experienced a service that continually evolved to meet their needs and preferences.
 

The provider demonstrated a strong and consistent commitment to ensuring equitable access for all individuals, regardless of ability, level of need, or the stage of their care journey. The environment, staffing arrangements, and admission practices were all designed to promote inclusion, safety, and timely access to care.
The home was fully accessible for people with varying levels of mobility or disability. Wide corridors, adapted bathrooms, and step-free access supported independent movement throughout the service. People could also access well-maintained outdoor garden areas, promoting choice and freedom in how and where they spent their time.
Accessibility also extended to how people called for support. All individuals had access to call bells, and for those unable to use standard systems, sensor mats and alternative alert mechanisms were in place to ensure timely assistance. This was particularly important for individuals with limited mobility, cognitive impairment, or communication difficulties. We observed staff responding quickly when sensors were triggered, showing the system was not only in place but actively used and effective . One person told us, “The staff are always watching out for me when I stand as I used to fall a lot. Since being in here the amount of falls I have has reduced.”
The service had robust out-of-hours arrangements, including the use of Telemeds (remote clinical consultation services). This ensured that people had prompt access to healthcare advice and assessment during evenings, weekends, or in emergency situations, reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and ensuring care could continue in the familiar home setting whenever appropriate.
Admissions were inclusive and flexible. The service supported a wide range of care needs including routine residential admissions, respite care, end of life care, and hospital discharges. Staff demonstrated flexibility and readiness in accommodating people at short notice, with clear processes in place to assess needs and coordinate timely support. This inclusivity meant people could access care when they most needed it, without undue delay or unnecessary barriers.
Staffing was also arranged to ensure consistent support. The rota was planned with intention, ensuring visible leadership was present on every shift, with either a deputy, manager, or unit lead available. This supported decision-making, continuity, and rapid response to any issues that may arise, both in and out of hours.
The impact of these systems was clear, people experienced timely, consistent access to care, regardless of the time of day or complexity of need. People told us they felt safe, well-supported, and able to move freely and confidently throughout the service. Relatives also praised the flexibility of the home in accepting admissions and responding to changing needs.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
We saw end of life care plans were available and detailed discussions had taken place with people and their families to explore their individual wishes, preferences, and needs as they approached the final stages of life.
There was clear evidence that the provider had fulfilled several people expressed wishes prior to their passing, including elements such as preferred environment, involvement of loved ones, and attention to cultural or spiritual needs. These actions had a positive impact on people’s dignity, comfort, and the emotional wellbeing of their families.
However, this level of personalised planning was not consistently reflected across all care plans. In some cases, documentation lacked the depth of person-centred detail seen in the care being delivered. While staff were still knowledgeable about people’s preferences and acted in line with them, the absence of clearly recorded wishes could pose a risk to consistency, particularly in the event of new or temporary staff involvement.
Improving the consistency and quality of end-of-life documentation would better evidence the good care already being delivered and further support a person-centred approach during a sensitive time in people’s lives.