• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Norton Place

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

162 Ness Road, Shoeburyness, Essex, SS3 9DL (01702) 291221

Provided and run by:
Estuary Housing Association Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 27 January 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 7 December 2020 and was announced.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 27 January 2021

About the service:

Norton Place is a nursing home, for up to 11 people with learning disabilities and complex health needs. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at the service, which is close to the seafront in Shoeburyness.

People’s experience of using this service:

People had good outcomes at Norton Place. They lived in a peaceful setting and their needs were met by care staff who knew them well. Feedback from relatives was positive about the service, with one relative saying, “[Person] is in the right place and is happy. It’s the best care they have had over the years.”

The service was effectively managed by a well-established registered manager and deputy manager. They led by example and had a passion for continually driving improvements and placing people at the centre of the service. They promoted a culture which shifted the emphasis away from people’s health needs and focused on them as individuals. The registered manager developed positive links with outside agencies and used feedback to learn from mistakes.

As part of the conditions of their registration the provider had to ensure there was always a qualified nurse on site. The service was very dependent on agency staff due to the difficulty in employing permanent nurses. There were increased risks from a high turnover of agency nursing staff as they did not always know people and the providers processes. The registered manager had effective measures in place to minimise this risk.

People were safe at the service. There were enough safely recruited staff to meet their needs. Staff knew what to do if they had concerns about a person’s safety and the registered manager investigated concerns thoroughly and openly. Staff minimised risks from the spread of infection.

People received their medicines safely. In the past there had been concerns about the administration of medicines. There had been several improvements as a result, which had improved the safety for people in this area. A new room was being converted into a dedicated area for the nursing staff and for storage of medicines. This would improve safety and privacy for people receiving support with their medicines.

Staff had a good understanding of risk for each person. The registered manager ensured measures to minimise assessed risk did not unnecessarily restrict people. There were effective processes to ensure the service met legal requirements where people’s freedom was restricted. Staff offered people choice and when they did not have capacity, made decisions which were in people’s best interest.

Staff were well trained, supported and supervised. Concerns about staff morale and poor practice were managed well. Staff had developed effective skills to meet the complex needs of the people at the service. Staff worked well along with external professionals to maintain people’s physical and emotional wellbeing. People ate and drunk in line with their preferences and dietary needs.

Support was person centred and tailored around individual’s specific needs. Staff reviewed and adjusted support when changes happened. People were supported to take part in pastimes and interests. The provider had invested in new training and a new vehicle to ensure people remained stimulated and able to access the community.

People and their families felt able to raise concerns. There was a formal complaints process, and although there were few complaints, the registered manager encouraged feedback and was pro-active about investigating and resolving informal concerns.

Staff had received training and guidance around supporting people who needed end of life care. Whilst no one at the service was currently receiving palliative care, staff spoke with respect and fondness of people and families who they had been able to support when end of life care was required.

More information is in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection:

Good. The last report was published on 3 September 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to check Norton Place to ensure people receive care which meets their needs. We plan our inspections based on existing ratings and on any new information which we receive about each service.