Shawcross Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Where necessary, the provider was documenting people’s food and fluid intake. Overall, food records were completed consistently and tended to include what the person had eaten and how much. For one person, due to a medical condition their care plan stated they should avoid brown bread and brown meat, for example pork, beef, lamb, sausages and bacon. Meal charts between the 16 and 21 April 2026, indicated they had eaten a sausage and bacon sandwich, pork dish, steak pudding and gravy and a beef dish. They had also had other sandwiches, though type of bread used was not listed. No adverse effects had been reported from eating these foods.

Although fluid intake was being recorded, people’s care records did not specify how much fluid they needed to drink each day, so staff knew what to aim for. British Dietetic Association guidance indicates older men should drink up to 2000 millilitres a day, older women 1600 millilitres a day. Fluid charts showed these amounts were rarely being offered, nor consumed. No evidence was noted of fluid intake being prioritised where intake was low.

Overall, people spoke positively about the provision of food and drink. People told us they received a choice at meal times and were given enough to eat and drink. Comments included, “There is a choice each day. They ask me what I want before the meal. I am never hungry” and “The food is very good, top marks for food. I often don’t have desert as I don’t need it. Drinks are provided through the day.”

Some examples noted of the environment being designed to meet people’s needs, with pictorial signage used to indicate toilets and bathrooms and help direct people around the home. Flooring, lighting and choice of décor had also been considered.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Guidance for care staff to follow to ensure people’s needs were met, was not always clear. For example, within different sections of 1 person’s care records it stated they needed to be repositioned every 2 hours, every 4 hours and 2 to 4 hourly. Another person’s care records stated they should get regular repositioning but did not provide any further details on frequency. Documenting of repositioning was inconsistent, with records indicating this was not being done frequently enough. As we identified no impact on people, this looked to be predominantly a record keeping issue.

Gaps were also noted in monitoring charts, used to document aspects of people’s care, for example regular checks to ensure they were okay and the provision of oral hygiene. One person was fully dependent on staff for their oral hygiene. Their mouth risk assessment stated their teeth and gums should be cleaned twice a day. During April 2026, their oral hygiene chart had not been completed on 6 days, and of the 18 days it had been, it showed their teeth and gums had only been cleaned twice a day on 3 occasions.

Overall, people told us they were happy with the support they received with personal hygiene. Comments included, “Monday is my day for having a bath or a shower. The rest of the time they wash me in bed. With my teeth, they hand me my toothbrush and paste, and I do the rest” and “‘I get one shower a week. I get a full body wash each day and I see to my own teeth.”

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.