Trafford Waters Care Home Also known as Tanglewood Shared Services Limited

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.

Person centred care was difficult to deliver due to staff being busy and task focused. During our 4 onsite visits we did observe some positive interactions between staff and people, but this was not consistent.

Staff did not appear to have right skills and knowledge to support people with cognitive impairments and the guidelines for staff in care plans were not always accurate and up to date. During one observation there appeared to be a lack of knowledge and experience needed to support a resident. Staff interventions often led to the resident becoming more agitated.

The registered manager reviewed and updated the residents emotional support care plan during the assessment.

We received mixed feedback from 9 visiting health and social care professionals about their experience of working with the staff at Trafford Waters Care Home. They told us, “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” and “Initially quite poor. I had booked a review with family present a week in advance to ensure a staff member would be present. I was told someone would join us and they did not.”

Continuity of care was more difficult due to the home being relatively new combined with a high turnover of staff. The provider had been working closely with the local authority since February 2026, and families and staff had reported some improvements. However, some families had questioned whether their loved ones were receiving the level of care that had been promised and what they were paying for.

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

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss.

The service made information available in ways that were accessible, safe and secure. As noted elsewhere in the report improvements could be made to improve how staff communicate and interact with people who have cognitive impairments.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Families reported issues with poor communication related to their relatives care and there had also been a relatively high number of complaints made in 2026. The provider was responsive to these complaints and saw them as an opportunity to put things right and to improve. Clear systems and oversight were in place to manage this.

Relative meetings had been increased and were now held monthly. Residents’ meetings were also held monthly and provided opportunities to provide feedback on issues such as menus, housekeeping, care, and activities. An annual survey was completed in January 2026.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Families had raised numerous concerns during the assessment about the quality of care provided. Staff did not always have the experience or the support to fully understand the inequality and disadvantages people with dementia can experience.

The home was accessible and had adaptations to support people’s needs. The provider was aware of their duties and reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure people could access the service.

Staff had appropriate access to support for emergencies that occurred out of hours.

Staff and leaders did not always have the experience to support people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff received training in a range of courses designed to support their understanding of people’s rights. These included dignity and respect, safeguarding and dementia awareness. However, we observed people with dementia not receiving the support required to ensure they had good outcomes.

Residents and families did not report any concerns related to the discrimination and inequality.

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.

No one was being supported with end-of-life care at the time of the inspection. The registered manager shared one example where they worked in partnership to help ensure one resident received a comfortable and dignified end of life care.

Staff were trained in end-of-life care and people, and their families were given opportunities to plan for this if they chose to. The home was planning to introduce an end-of-life champion to further support good practice in this area.