Archived: Norwood House

Updated 8 June 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the registered provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 17 and 20 April 2015 and was unannounced. The first day of our visit was carried out by an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The second day was undertaken by an adult social care inspector.

We had not asked the registered provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Therefore, we looked at the notifications received and reviewed all the intelligence CQC held to help inform us about the level of risk for this service. We reviewed all of this information to help us to make a judgement.

During our visits we undertook a tour of the building. We used observation to see how people were cared for whilst they were in the communal areas of the service. We watched lunch being served and observed a medicine round. We looked at a variety of records; this included three people’s care records and risk assessments and Medication Administration Records, [MARs]. We looked at records relating to the management of the service, policies and procedures, maintenance, quality assurance documentation and the complaints information. We also looked at staff rotas, staff training, supervision and appraisal records and discussed information with the registered manager about the recruitment process.

We spoke with the registered manager and interviewed six staff and the cook. We spoke with seven people living at the home, and with seven visitors. We asked a visiting health care professional for their views. We were informed by people that they were satisfied with the service they received.

Most people living at the service were living with dementia, some could not tell us about their experiences. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of the people who used the service including the Short Observational Framework for Inspection [SOFI]. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us. This confirmed that people were supported well by staff and provided us with evidence that the staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences well.

Updated 8 June 2015

This inspection was undertaken on 17 and 20 April 2015, and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 24 May 2014 and was found to be in breach of the regulations in relation to safeguarding and assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. A further inspection was undertaken on 11 September 2014. We found the issues had been addressed and the service was compliant with the regulations that we looked at.

Norwood House is registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to provide accommodation for up to 26 older people who are elderly or who are living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over two floors; the home is set in private gardens. The service is situated on the main road through Gunness. Local amenities and a bus route into Scunthorpe are accessible. There is a car park for visitors to use. Staff are available twenty four hours a day to support people.

This service has a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had a clear understanding about their duty to protect people from abuse. Staff knew they must report concerns or potential abuse to the management team, local authority or to the Care Quality Commission [CQC]. This helped to protect people.

We observed there were enough staff on duty to support people during our visits. Staff understood people’s needs well and they were aware of risks to people’s health and wellbeing. Staff received training in a variety of subjects to help maintain their skills.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored. Food provided was home cooked. People’s preferences and special dietary needs were catered for. Staff encouraged people to eat and drink, where necessary, assisting people with patience and kindness. Advice was sought from health care professionals to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met.

A visiting health care professional confirmed that the staff sought their advice, reported issues and followed their guidance to help maintain people’s wellbeing.

The service had recently benefitted from a programme of refurbishment and internal redecoration. People’s bedrooms were personalised. Some pictorial signage was in place and new pictorial signage was ordered which helped people to find their way around and staff helped guide people to where they wished to go. Service contracts were in place to maintain equipment so it remained safe to use.

Staff respected people’s individuality, privacy and dignity. People made decisions about what they wanted to do and how they wanted to spend their time Staff supported people to make decisions for themselves, where necessary, staff reworded questions or information to help people understand.

A complaints procedure was in place for people, relatives and visitors to use to raise any issues.

The registered manager undertook regular audits to help them to monitor, maintain or improve the service. These were changed in regards to some issues we found on the first day of our inspection so that these issues could be monitored and be prevented from occurring again.

Staff asked for people’s views and they acted upon what people said. This helped to ensure people remained satisfied with the service they received.