Trafford Waters Care Home Also known as Tanglewood Shared Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement.

There was a disconnect between care staff and the management team, and the overall culture within the service was not always positive. While some improvements had been made in response to concerns raised by the local authority, these were recent and needed to be embedded and sustained to ensure lasting improvements in practice.

Most of the feedback we received from staff was negative about their experience of working in the home. They told us, “Management do not engage with us well. We have only had 2 team meetings this year. I have had no 1-1 supervision or feedback about my progress” and “When we opened, the regional managers left us, now everything has gone wrong everyone is here. The registered manager should have had the help from the beginning.”

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

We received negative feedback from staff and relatives about their experience of how the service was managed. In response to these concerns, the provider ensured the senior management team had a stronger presence within the home from February 2026. While some improvements were reported from this point, further work was required to address identified shortfalls and embed consistent management oversight.

A new manager and deputy manager had been recruited, and the provider had demonstrated its commitment to continuous learning and improvement through its responses to the shortfalls identified.

Staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

We received mixed feedback from staff about their experience of raising issues with management. They told us, “The management is not welcoming. There is no trust. There is a high turnover as a result” and “Things have improved since the local authority came in. The management are approachable.” The provider was trying the address these concerns and had provided additional meetings for staff. Some staff told us morale had improved in response to the recent changes.

Residents and families told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt able to do so. We saw examples of responses to these concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The staff we spoke with were from a diverse range of backgrounds. We received no feedback about any unfair treatment related to these backgrounds.

The provider told us they encouraged and celebrated diversity and catered for this in different ways as required. Menu choices at mealtimes factored in staff’s dietary requirements and there was a multifaith room which is used by team members to pray during break times. Breaks were also adjusted to accommodate staffs request to pray.

The provider had responded quickly to concerns raised in February 2026 and was working in partnership with the local authority to resolve these concerns. Good progress has been reported by the local authority, and we have seen clear evidence of these improvements.

There was a comprehensive quality monitoring system already in place with a clear audit schedule where issues were identified and actions put in place to address shortfalls.

The quality assurance system had not been effective. We found multiple breaches of regulations related to person centred care, safe care and treatment, meeting nutritional and hydration needs, staffing and good governance.

The provider had failed to ensure staff maintained accurate, complete and contemporaneous record. This placed people at risk of not receiving care in line with their assessed needs.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

The provider was working collaboratively with the local authority to help drive improvements within the service and appropriate referrals were made to external health and social care professionals when required.

We received mixed feedback from visiting professionals about their experience of working with staff from the home.

Systems were in place to support continuous learning and improvement across the organisation.

The home had a number of action plans in place to help address the issues identified by their own processes and by the local authority. They were committed to improving the home.