You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Norwood House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 June 2014
Date of Publication: 5 September 2014
Inspection Report published 05 September 2014 PDF | 87.22 KB


Inspection carried out on 25 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continuously improve.

The service had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). There was no one currently using the service who had a DOLS in place. The provider knew how to request an assessment if this was required. Staff received safeguarding and MCA training. This meant staff were aware of procedures they must follow in order to ensure people were safeguarded.

When people were identified as being at risk, their care plans showed the actions that would be required to manage these risks.

People were protected from the risk of infection because staff followed good infection control practice and these practices were monitored regularly.

Some areas of the home were ‘cluttered’ with unused equipment and some items accessible to people which would pose a risk to their health and safety.

There were sufficient care workers to respond to people's health and welfare needs. One person said "There are always enough staff around, I don’t have to wait" Another person said "Staff are busy but they do have time to spend with me."

Is the service effective?

An assessment was completed prior to people being admitted to the service which detailed people's needs. Care plans covering areas such as personal care, mobility, nutrition, daily and social preferences and health conditions were completed. We saw corresponding risk assessments in place. We could see that people's care had been reviewed and their plans amended

Is the service caring?

We saw staff were attentive and respectful when speaking with or supporting people. People looked well cared for and appeared at ease with staff. The home had a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere.

One person said “The staff are very nice we’re like a family”. And another person said “I have no worries about the care my relative gets.”

Is the service responsive?

People using the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual survey. This enabled the manager to address any shortfalls or concerns.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a developing quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us the manager was supportive and promoted positive team working.