Trafford Waters Care Home Also known as Tanglewood Shared Services Limited

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to meeting nutritional and hydration needs.

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.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always review and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them or their families.

All prospective residents had received a face-to-face assessment to ensure people’s needs could be met before they moved in.

Families were not always involved in the assessment of people’s needs and their reviews. Families told us, “I wasn’t involved in [relatives] care plan it came from the original care plan, and they promised to send me a copy, and they would sit down and go through it, but it hasn’t happened…they were supposed to ring me with an update, but I haven’t had one” and “We have not had a review of the care plan since [relative] has been here. We have been hounding them to review the care plan.”

People’s care, treatment and support was not always delivered in line with national standards and evidence-based good practice guidance.

It was not clear if staff received enough training and support to ensure they understood how to support people living with dementia. Trafford Waters Care Home Statement of Purpose states, “People living with dementia have unique needs, we set the highest standards in specialist dementia care in our care homes.” We requested further information from the registered manager to demonstrate this. No information was received.

A lack of person-centred care to support people with dementia was further impacted by a high turnover of staff. Families told us staff did not know the residents well enough, and the approach taken by different staff members was not always consistent.

The mealtime experience observed during the assessment was mixed. Some observations were poor, with care being overly task-focused with limited meaningful interaction between staff and people living at the service.

People were not always supported to manage their dietary needs and associated risks. Inspectors observed one person not being supported in line with their care plan and the local authority informed us of a second person whose care plan was not followed during mealtimes.

Where people required specific support at mealtimes there was no record made to evidence this support had been provided. The registered manager agreed to implement changes to improve the recording of these tasks in future.

Some observations were more positive and often involved the chef who would try and engage with people as much as possible. We observed one staff member who went the extra mile to try and support someone with dementia to eat by offering different options and by prompting them on several occasions. When asked the staff member said this approach was not covered in their training and was acquired in a previous role. Staff sometimes struggled to meet people’s needs at mealtimes. Staff told us, “I cried the other day on the ground floor. The girl I was with was giving people baths around dinner time. I was doing meals on my own. That was hard. There were around 8 or 9 people to support.”

Families told us they often helped at mealtimes as the support provided by staff was not sufficient. They told us, “I do think some of them need more training not just on care of the residents, it’s more about mealtimes, they are supposed to do a show and tell of the food, but they don’t do it, when I ask the staff said they didn’t know” and “staff don’t support eating and feeding and we try and attend to do this when we can.”

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

The provider had committed resources from the senior team since the local authority visit in February 2026 to support improvement. Changes had been implemented to improve the deployment and coordination of the staff teams. Some staff had reported an improvement and had told us there had been a lack of direction and leadership previously.

Staff told us, “My overall experience has been up and down. Good times and bad times. I felt like leaving at times. It started to improve since the local authority involvement in February 2026. It has helped a lot, it is improving, there was a time when people did not know what they were doing…In the last 4 weeks I can see further improvements – it is tidier, residents seem more relaxed and there are task allocation sheets. We have a tick list to follow now. It is more organised” and “In the last couple of weeks things have improved, there is more structure, more staff has helped…We are being asked if we are okay now and we are getting our breaks.” Communication was supported by the completion of daily clinical oversight documents and staff also attended daily handovers.

A high turnover of staff had impacted on communication as new staff were not always being supported by experienced staff. The home was relatively new and many of the staff had therefore not been in post for a sustained period.

Staff told us they worked well with external professionals to help meet people’s needs. We received some positive feedback from health and social care professionals. They told us, “My experience of the service since then has been good…I’ve had no issues with communication with the wider staff team. Phone calls and emails are responded to promptly, and staff are generally easy to contact…Overall, communication has been very good, and I appreciate the effort and commitment shown by the manager and staff in supporting an individual with complex needs.”

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s day-to-day health needs were being met at the home. People were encouraged and supported to understand and make healthier choices related to their diet, lifestyle, physical activity, personal and oral hygiene.

Staffing levels and an absence of staff to support people with activities had impacted on people’s wellbeing and the opportunities to live healthier lives had been reduced as a result.

The home provided some activities to promote healthier lives. Every Friday exercise clubs were completed to promote movement and exercise to improve strength, balance and coordination and the home had recently sourced free yoga classes from the local authority to offer further opportunities to the residents.

The home provided a case study demonstrating how one resident had been supported to reduce their dependency on other services by improving health related outcomes.

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.

Care plans did contain some information about goals, but these were not always clearly defined, and it was not always clear whose goals they were. They appeared to be written by staff without fully consulting and involving people. If people are to be supported to live their best lives improvement is required to improve how goals are set and when they are reviewed.

The home provided one case study demonstrating how one care plan had been reviewed with family to reduce the number of falls one resident was experiencing.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People’s care plans contained information about consent, capacity and decision making.

Individual Mental Capacity Act assessments we reviewed were of a good standard and demonstrated that staff were encouraged to take all practicable steps to support people to make their own decisions. Where people were unable to make specific decisions, staff consulted with relevant others and made decisions in people’s best interests.

We were informed staff were in the process of receiving an enhanced level of training in this area to support further improvement. Staff had been trained but the training had not been effective. The staff we spoke with confirmed this.