You are here

Archived: The Norfolk Hospice

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 January 2012
Date of Publication: 27 February 2012
Inspection Report published 27 February 2012 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider is compliant in this outcome. The service is evaluated by asking the people who use the service how the support offered to them affects them and if improvements can be made.

User experience

Throughout the day of this visit we received nothing but praise for the service provided at this hospice. We were told the staff, drivers, volunteers and management were all dedicated and supportive. “You cannot fault the help we get from therapy, counselling, nice food to good company”. One aspect of the service that was mentioned on a number of occasions was the full support offered to the carers. We were told, “My carer is just as involved in the support as I am. There is always someone available for them to talk to”.

Other evidence

This service had a number of different people visiting the service on different days. Each day was different according to the planned therapy sessions or social support. The quality of the service was monitored in different ways.

We were given a copy of the ‘Back to Back’ therapy evaluation report of 2011. There were numerous comments that told us how supportive the therapy sessions had been. Comments such as ‘this is second to none’, and, ‘this is a lifeline’ were just two of a large number of comments. Where people were asked if anything would improve the service, all ten people who had replied made only positive remarks with no suggestions offered for improvement.

A similar result was noted in the evaluation for complementary therapy completed in December 2012 with no comments, other than positive remarks, on how this service could be improved.

During our walk around the building we noted that the equipment used, such as hoists had been serviced in 2011 and that the fire service had recently checked all the fire fighting equipment.

The service had procedures in place to ensure staff were recruited, trained, supervised and appraised to provide the job tasks expected at a quality required.