Shawcross 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 72 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

The provider had not ensured protocols were person centred for people who had medication prescribed when required or for those who had medicines administered via a feeding tube directly into the stomach. We reviewed various protocols, and most did not contain specific details as to how staff should provide the medication and were not individualised.

Care was not always being delivered or recorded in line with actions outlined within care plans. Despite people having daily washes, we found some people were not being bathed or showered once a week despite this being in the care plan. We raised this with the registered manager who explained one of the residents tended to refuse and had the mental capacity to do so.

The ‘my life history’ sections of the care plans had not been completed. These sections included topics such as ‘what people like and admire about me’, ‘people and places that are important to me’, ‘childhood memories’ and ‘current and past interests and hobbies’. The registered manager said the service had transitioned over to electronic care plans late in 2024 and the priority had been to ensure all care plans and risk assessments were transferred initially. The next phase would be a focus on the persons history and were to invite residents’ families to have conversations around this.

Relatives provided mixed feedback regarding whether they felt staff interacted for lengthy periods of time with their loved ones. Some said they did and provided examples of staff looking through photographs, whilst some said it would be too difficult for staff due to how busy they were. We were aware the wellbeing coordinator arranged 1:1 conversations with residents, including those who were confined to their bedrooms.

People and relatives said there were plenty of activities taking place at the home. Some relatives suggested more trips were required. The wellbeing coordinator was new in post and had plans to improve the scope of activities being offered.

The care records were detailed and included a step by step walk through of the tasks which were required for the person at specific points in the day. There was a section which outlined specific details which staff would need to know to meet the persons needs including whether they needed support using deodorant, how they were moved from chairs and up and down the stairs.

The initial assessment completed was broken down into different areas including cognition, psychological, physical, social and end of life needs. Under each of these headings there were subtopics which including sleeping, infection risk and emotions. Most of these sections were completed and used “I statement’s” to make it more personalised.

People with long term health conditions such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) had care plans specifically for these which included instructions on how to support the person, in this case to ensure they instructed the person to use their prescribed inhaler, amongst other directions.

Risk assessments were specific to the person, dependent on their care needs.

Staff ensured a range of different activities were taking place which were specific to people’s interests. Activities such as karaoke, group exercise, a trip to the local garden centre, personalised shopping with a resident and various 1:1’s for people who were supported in their bedrooms had all been completed in June.

People were engaged with the activities. We observed a performance by a singer and found the residents and relatives to be engaged. Prior to the performance, we observed a group of people discussing their excitement for the live entertainment later the same day.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s care was mainly delivered in line with their preadmission assessments and ongoing reviews, apart from some gaps which we identified.

The provider ensured care plans mainly reflected people’s current needs, risks and preferences.

Leaders ensured staffing arrangements meant people received care from staff who knew them well. This was more evident during the day shifts but ensured there was some continuity of care for people.

Staff, people and relatives told us handovers and communication systems-maintained continuity of care.

The service worked closely with other healthcare professionals and quality assurance teams which meant coordinated and quality care was provided.

The leaders ensured staff teams were connected to networks and communication channels to keep informed of the health and social care system. For example, the IPC leads for the service attended meetings with the local authority’s IPC team regularly to learn about updates to IPC practices.

People and relatives told us their loved ones were getting the care they required. A relative told us, “[Person] gets all the care [they] need; I feel the home is very good value for money. [Person] is thriving here.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service ensured information was displayed around the home for residents and visitors. For example, the reception area contained policies regarding safeguarding and outlined the activity schedule for the week.

Staff told us relatives or people who had capacity were updated promptly if care needs or circumstances changed. Relatives confirmed this occurred; they told us this was either completed over the telephone or when they visited. We saw good interactions between staff, leaders and relatives in which we overheard them being updated about their loved ones.

Staff ensured they explained choices and options in a way people could understand. We observed simple verbal explanations being provided for those with cognitive impairment.

The service ensured there was clear guidance on how to raise concerns or complaints. We saw there was information about independent advocacy services within the reception.

The registered manger told us they used large formats or braille when required. The registered manager said they accessed support from the marketing department if needed. They also told us the service had social media platforms which the communications and marketing team had oversight of.

Relatives had no concerns regarding their loved one’s personal information not being kept confidential. They told us staff spoke discreetly when speaking about residents.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service held residents’ meetings quarterly. We reviewed the meeting minutes and found items such as the activities, food and accessories required for the garden areas were discussed.

People and relatives said staff communicated well. People said they could understand and hear all the staff when they spoke, and they clearly explained themselves. Relatives said they were always kept informed by staff.

The provider ensured best interest meetings were held for people who lacked capacity and either did not have a legal power of attorney in relation to health and social care or when a major decision was required to be agreed upon.

Staff were trained in supporting people with dementia and recognised verbal and nonverbal cues and were observed to be actively listening to people and responding appropriately.

People were offered meaningful choices about how to spend their time and there were opportunities to join in social, recreational or therapeutic activities tailored to their preferences.

The provider ensured there were systems for people and their relatives to provide feedback, suggestions, concerns or complaints. We reviewed the most recent concerns and complaints and found they were managed swiftly by the leaders of the service. A relative told us about a concern they had raised recently. The relative felt comfortable raising the concern with the registered manager and felt they had taken their concern seriously and would be investigating it.

Feedback was sought from online reviews of the care home. Currently the care home scored 9.9/10 on a review website.

Relatives said there had not been any resident’s meetings of late apart from July 2025. Those who did not attend the meeting told us they were not concerned as they are always asked for their opinions and suggestions by staff when they visited.

The service did not have care plan reviews with relatives or people, but we were confident people and relatives were updated when required.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were able to access the care, support, and activities they needed without any unnecessary barriers.

The provider ensured there were pre – admission assessments completed which identified any mobility, sensory, communication or cultural needs so adjustments could be made before a person moved into the service.

The environment was dementia friendly. The premises ensured people had access to equal opportunities. The home had lots of equipment which ensured people could maintain their independence. The bathrooms were designed to enable easy access to showers and there were seats to sit whilst washing.

Staff and leaders actively 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.

We observed staff treating all the people with the same level of compassion, dignity and respect, regardless of their backgrounds.

Staff regularly reviewed outcomes for people via their care planning reviews and via daily observations. A meeting was held daily with the management and seniors. Minutes from these meetings showed all people’s outcomes were being reviewed and no group was disadvantaged.

The registered manager told us the service had a diverse staff team who came from a range of cultures. They said this helped to cater to people who shared the same cultural needs.

The provider ensured visitors were welcome to visit the facilities at any time which ensured people had access to additional support.

The service provided a range of different foods which were catered for individuals based on their eating requirements. We were told gluten free food was offered currently and if people requested Halal meat or had other religious requirements in the future these would be met.

People said the service generally met their personal, cultural and social needs and told us everyone was treated equally.

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.

The provider ensured it had structures and mechanisms to support staff in delivering end-of-life care to people. The policy outlined the principles of end-of-life care and the importance of developing an end-of-life care plan with staff’s roles and responsibilities clearly indicated.

Staff had not completed advanced care plans for most people. The registered manager told us those discussions would be held closer to the time of this occurring.

The teams were proactive in obtaining a statement of intent for people who were approaching the end of their life.

The provider made sure people had DNACPR forms (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) in place for people who had this as part of their care plans.

Staff were trained in end-of-life care and understood the importance of respecting and following people’s choices and wishes for their end-of-life care.

The service had helpful links with healthcare teams, palliative care specialists, and the local hospice.

The service had the appropriate equipment such as profiling beds and airflow mattresses to ensure people were comfortable as they approached the end of their life.

The service ensured the outcome and goals sections of each persons care plan was completed.