CQC Location ID:1-18626995137
Date of assessment: 17 February to 26 February 2026. Escan Manor is a care home that provides nursing care. The service is registered to provide personal care for a maximum of 72 people. Some people living at the service were living with dementia. There were 34 people living at the service at the time of our assessment visit. At our previous assessment, the service was rated as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, we found the overall rating of the service has changed to Good. At our last assessment, we found three breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and governance. The service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of these regulations. There were appropriate systems and processes in place to manage risks to people and to manage safeguarding concerns. Improvements in governance systems were identified. However, we have identified a new breach in relation to failing to send statutory notifications. The service had a new manager in post since December 2025. Staff told us the current management team had impacted positively on the service, and all felt confident about the future direction of Escan Manor. Staff understood safeguarding processes and the service management had escalated concerns where required. We received mixed feedback about the number of staff on duty. Staff told us that they felt staffing levels were appropriate but unplanned sickness could be problematic. Staff were recruited safely when they started their employment. Infection control processes were monitored, and the home was clean and well presented. There were systems to record accidents and incidents; however, improvements were needed to ensure learning from events was undertaken in relation to safeguarding and complaint management. Systems to manage medicines had improved. Staff received an induction, training, supervision and appraisal to enable them to meet people’s needs. We received mixed feedback from staff about the quality of the induction. People’s needs relating to eating and drinking were monitored and risk relating to malnutrition or dehydration was escalated where needed. People were cared for respectfully and treated as individuals. Staff communication with people was positive and relatives generally spoke highly of the service provided. Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. Where required, appropriate records and processes to ensure decisions were taken in people’s best interest were completed. There were improvements identified in governance arrangements. The service manager and senior staff demonstrated an understanding of where improvements were required, particularly in relation to seeking feedback from people and their relatives. There was a service improvement plan in place to continually develop and improve. The provider had strengthened auditing and oversight arrangements to achieve and sustain long‑term improvement. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
We spoke with 7 people who used the service and 6 people’s relatives. We spoke with 12 members of staff. This included the service manager, deputy manager, care staff and housekeeping staff. We requested feedback from 4 health and social care professionals about their views of the service and received responses from 2 of them. People living at the service generally experienced kind, respectful and person‑centred care delivered by staff who knew them well. One person told us, “They look after me so very well.” Another person said, “The carers are like my friends now, there’s not one member of staff that I don’t like.” People told us they were treated with dignity and supported in a way that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Most relatives spoke positively about the staff team, describing them as caring and responsive. We received mixed feedback about people and their relatives being involved in care planning and care reviews, this was highlighted to the service manager. People gave mixed feedback on staffing numbers within the service. Most people and relatives told us they felt there was a lack of staff. Some commented on how it can be an issue gaining entry to the building as there was nobody on reception, especially at the weekend. However, others commented they felt there were sufficient staff on duty. We received positive feedback about the cleanliness and presentation of the service.