Escan 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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service.This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 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 relatives told us they did not always feel as though staff had the right training and experience to meet their needs, and did not always know people well. However, they all said improvements were being made. Comments included, “Mum is quite anxious and looks to us about what is happening, there are a few carers who have been the same throughout but all the change has been very hard on her and us”, “[Changes] have affected residents and us and it was a very uncertain time but I think things are getting better now” and “I do not think that all staff understand the condition and how it affects [person’s name], they do not seem to listen to me and act like they know more than me.”

People and relatives told us they were involved in discussions and decisions about what was important to them and how they wanted care and treatment to be delivered. However, this was not always recorded, and people’s care records were found to be inconsistent in the level of detail of guidance provided for staff, to ensure care was person centred and met the individual and unique needs of all people. The new management team had already identified this and were taking action.

People received appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. People had access to bedrails, mobility aids and adapted crockery if required; and adaptations had been made to the home to help make it safer and more accessible for those living there. Staff provided different levels of support to people depending on their needs.

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 and relatives thought care had previously not always been joined up to meet the needs of people effectively. The new management team had identified this and had put new processes in place to ensure better communication with external healthcare providers and the local authority. Health concerns were now being recorded, and we saw evidence of regular contact with the GP and any concerns were escalated appropriately. New audits and oversight monitoring was being put in place including ensuring there was clarity about who had responsibility for people’s individual health needs. One health professional told us, “Staff have been very responsive and helpful. They have implemented my positioning advice immediately for my patient and they are always available for a handover.” The new management team were now working towards having a meeting with as many external health stakeholders to promote better working relationships with the service.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives did not have information about how to raise concerns and relatives felt when they raised concerns they were not always dealt with. A recent satisfaction survey started in January 2025 had raised some issues from relatives that the new management team were following up. Relatives told us they had not had input in relation to care planning although they were informed if there were any specific issues.

There was a complaints process and policy but there was no evidence of this being used other than for one formal written complaint. The new management team had identified this as an area for improvement and had introduced a ‘grumbles’ complaints book and shared with staff about how to raise any verbal issues so they could be actioned promptly.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives did not have information about how to raise concerns and relatives felt when they raised concerns they were not always dealt with. A recent satisfaction survey started in January 2025 had raised some issues from relatives that the new management team were following up. Relatives told us they had not had input in relation to care planning although they were informed if there were any specific issues.

There was a complaints process and policy but there was no evidence of this being used other than for one formal written complaint. The new management team had identified this as an area for improvement and had introduced a ‘grumbles’ complaints book and shared with staff about how to raise any verbal issues so they could be actioned promptly.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equal access to care and support and did not experience any barriers. Equality and human rights, including people’s protected characteristics were known, understood and planned for. People and relatives did not have any feedback in this category.

People were supported by external healthcare professionals to stay healthy. A representative from the GP practice visited the service weekly to complete health and medication reviews and assessments of people who were unwell. People were supported to attend external health appointments. Staff had access to out of hours management support in the event of an emergency requiring additional support and guidance.

People’s individual care and treatment needs were assessed before they transferred to the service. This included consideration of any protected characteristics, and any adjustments required. This protected people from discrimination.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The new management team were ensuring all people using the service received the same opportunities, experiences and outcomes. Confusion about which healthcare partners had responsibility for peoples’ support was being clarified. For example, skilled health professionals were now overseeing catheter care for one person and staff had recently been trained. The daily staff handover, flash meetings and setting up of a resident of the day scheme were now in place and being embedded. Resident and relative meetings were being booked as there had not been any for some time and care records were in the process of being audited to support this.

People and relatives did not have any feedback in this category other than they felt the new management team was approachable and they were seeing improvements in communication. Satisfaction surveys were being carried out and any concerns not responded to previously were being addressed as a priority.

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’s pre-assessment process confirmed people’s wishes regarding end of life care and treatment was discussed, recorded and planned with them. We saw examples of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Advanced Decisions. There was an internal process and procedure outlining how this information was shared with staff in the event it was required. This important information was known and understood by staff. Care records confirmed people’s funeral plan wishes had been discussed and recorded. Staff had received end of life care training.