Shawcross Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 25 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 21 March to 12 April 2026. The service is a residential nursing home providing support to older people and people living with dementia. The home contains 2 separate units: residential and nursing. The home can accommodate a total of 50 people. At the time of assessment 44 people were living there.

The assessment was completed to check if improvements had been made following our last assessment in July 2025. Following that assessment, we took regulatory action due to identifying breaches of the legal regulation relating to governance and record keeping.

At this assessment, whilst some improvements had been made, the provider remained in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance and record keeping. The provider was also in breach of 2 further legal regulations relating to the management of medicines, staff training and support. Some care records and risk assessments lacked detail, contained incorrect or contradictory information with current needs not always easy to identify. Monitoring charts had not been completed consistently. Whilst audits had identified the majority of issues we noted, improvements had either yet to be made or had not been sustained. Medicines had not always been managed safely. Completion of staff supervision and appraisal was inconsistent. Training completion rates were variable and mandatory training in learning disability and autism had not been provided, as required under current legislation.

Accidents and incidents had been documented, along with immediate actions taken. However, information on outcomes and lessons learned was limited. Safeguarding concerns had been reported to the local authority and logged on a spreadsheet, which also contained limited to no details of outcomes and lessons learned. Staff were recruited safely. The provider’s dependency tool indicated enough staff were deployed to meet needs, although people, relatives and staff provided mixed views about this.

Fluid charts were kept, although care records did not contain guidance on how much people should drink. Food intake had also been monitored; these were relatively detailed although they did indicate one person may have been given food’s their care plan said to avoid.

Care records varied in quality and consistency, with some individuals’ care plans being detailed and easy to follow, whilst others were confusing, lacked detail or were contradictory. Staff knew what person-centred care meant and how to provide this. People told us they were treated as individuals.

A new auditing and governance system had recently been introduced, though this was not yet fully embedded into practice. Action plans had been used to detail areas for improvement and how these would be achieved. However, timeframes for improvement often extended over several months, rather than being short term achievable goals.

There had been a number of changes to management since we last assessed the home in July 2025. The previous registered manager had left not long after that assessment, the deputy had stepped up on an interim basis, before a new registered manager started at the end of the year. These changes had understandably impacted on consistency of leadership. Despite this people and relatives felt the home was well run and had no concerns with the care provided.