Townsend Manor

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.

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

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders and the staff team did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People and their relatives had mixed opinions around whether the care and support delivered was person-centred. A relative said, “When [family member] went in, they did a care plan and every month they come to us and ask if there is anything we need added to his plan and they abide by our wishes.”

Whilst people’s care plans contained individual and personalised information on how staff were to support them in line with their wishes our observations identified significant shortfalls in person-centred care. We identified that some people’s personal care support was not always carried out in full and in line with their wishes. Where staff were guided to provide additional risk related supported this was not always followed, including additional environmental checks.

Monitoring records also showed care need were not always followed in line with guidance in place. A relative confirmed to us, “I wish someone would help [family member] to clean her teeth and wash her hands sometimes her nails are filthy. They don’t make sure they wash her hands before meals. My mum doesn’t like to be hurried, and the staff haven’t time to wait for her to be ready.” Another relative told us, “It’s the little things that matter; they have a stupid thing about asking him lots of questions and at the end he gets so confused and he ends up not having his cardigan or jumper on and he gets chilly. His hair isn’t brushed, and his slippers aren’t on, and he says he is cold. We have asked them to do it, to get into a routine.”

Leaders at the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Feedback from health professionals in the main was positive and that staff engaged with them. A health professional confirmed a “Collaborative approach.” Another health professional told us, “I feel able to sit with the senior members of the team at Townsend Manor and discuss/make plans and or given advice for the residents in their care. I have givenfeedbackpreviouslytothe management team about concerns and it has been acknowledged appropriately.” However, we found guidance from professionals was not always followed, demonstrating although communication was in the main positive advice given was not always followed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs and in line with the accessible information standard. At the service some people lived with dementia and or had a sensory impairment. Information, such as daily menus and room signage were not always provided to people in line with the accessible information standard. This standard helps aid people’s understanding or helped orientate themselves around the building. A staff member said, “[It’s] not practical for people living with dementia, [the] signage is not clear.” A relative confirmed to us, “There is no dementia friendly adaptations.”

Not all staff wore name badges, although this improved once fed back to the management team. We also observed occasions when on speaking to a person prior to assisting them, staff failed to introduce themselves or were unable to answer their questions. For example, during a site visit we saw staff offering people soup, but when asked, staff were unable to inform people what the soup of the day option was.

Leaders and the staff team enabled people and their representatives to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People and their relatives, representatives were given opportunities to feedback on the care and support received. Resident meetings were held; however, we were also told these could be cancelled at short notice. A person said, “[They] have residents’ meetings, [family member’s] go, several times [family member] has arranged to go and the day before, the meeting is always cancelled.”

A survey for residents, friends and family was undertaken in April 2025 to gather feedback. 12 people responded from the 52 surveys sent out. Relatives had mixed opinions about whether they had been given information on what to do if worried. However, relatives confirmed, “I haven’t had to complain but sometimes I have had to make suggestions, I would speak to a senior carer or the manager.” And, “I would speak to the staff or managers and things would get done.”

Analysis of concerns undertaken by the senior management team for the period of January 2025 to November 2025 detailed areas of concerns raised and the actions to be taken as a result of learning. Areas for improvement that were upheld were environmental and communication failures.

We also saw compliments had been received about the service which thanked staff for the care and support they had provided.

Leaders and staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they required when they needed it. For example, referrals were made to specialist services such as occupational therapists, district nurses and speech and language therapists. The professionals’ advice helped inform people’s care records and risk assessments to guide staff on how to support people safely and effectively. A relative confirmed, “He has a chiropodist, I organise for him to see an optician, [and] sometimes he sees the district nurse.”

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff undertook training in equality, diversity and inclusion which supported them to understand people’s protected characteristics and differences and how best to support them. This included access to religious services should they choose to attend. A relative confirmed to us, “Oh yes, there is no discriminations.” However, not all people’s needs were met in line with care needs, due to staff not always following guidance set out in people’s care records.

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. This important information, including any religious or cultural wishes, or a person’s wish to be resuscitated was documented to guide staff. Relatives confirmed to us that end-of-life wishes had been discussed and documented to guide staff. A relative said, “Yes, I have sorted out a plan with a DNR (do not resuscitate document).” Another told us, “Yes, we have it all recorded.”

Relatives also told us staff could not have treated them any better when their family member was at the end-of-life stage. They told us they were allowed to stay at the service, and given beds, meals and drinks as well as being supported with kindness.