Norwood House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness, empathy, and respect. Staff supported people in a compassionate and personalised way, taking account of their preferences and individual needs. Privacy and dignity were maintained, and people had access to private spaces indoors, and in the garden, to spend time with visitors. One person told us: “They have encouraged me to come every Friday and Sunday to have a meal with my friend, and it’s always nice.” This demonstrated that staff promoted social connections and respected what mattered to people. Staff also treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect, supporting inclusivity.

Staff aimed to treat people as individuals and used the information available in care plans to support personalised care. They recognised people’s communication styles and preferences. They knew people well, which helped build trusting relationships. However, this was not always consistent. Care plans contained limited information about people’s goals, cultural needs, and protected characteristics. There was little evidence of the planning or revision of individual goals or detailed transition plans for people with a learning disability or autism. This resulted in missed opportunities to fully embed person-centred care

People were supported to maintain independence and had choice and control over their care, treatment, and daily routines. Staff encouraged autonomy and respected individual preferences, enabling people to make decisions about how they spent their time. Staff supported people to access community activities and maintain hobbies, which helped people feel in control of their lives.

One person told us, “I like colouring, watching DVDs and I can go out myself.”
Another said, “They [staff] get used to what you like and what you don’t. I like doing crosswords, watching telly and going out for a smoke.” People described being able to choose activities, meals, and when to go out, and staff provided support when needed without limiting independence. One person commented, “The staff are lovely, they know me well after the length of time I’ve been here. Oh yes definitely independent, make my own choices. “This demonstrated that people’s rights were understood and upheld, promoting dignity and wellbeing.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs. Staff did not consistently respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Insufficient training in Positive Behaviour Support, and gaps in care plans reduced the ability of staff to respond confidently and consistently to people’s immediate needs. For example, during our visit we observed a person becoming agitated and displaying aggressive behaviour in a communal area. Staff attempted to intervene but were unable to diffuse the situation promptly, leaving other people and staff visibly distressed. Daily records showed similar behaviours had occurred repeatedly since June 2025, however, care plans lacked detailed guidance on managing these risks. Staff aimed to support people; however, their responses were not always timely or effective. People told us staff were caring but sometimes unavailable when they wanted interaction or reassurance. One person said, “Sometimes they [staff] have time to talk when they are not doing stuff.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not consistently support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they received regular supervisions and appraisals. Competency checks for medicines were completed, however, there were gaps in induction and training records. For example, staff told us they had not received formal training in to support people with a learning disability or Positive Behaviour Support despite supporting people who presented with difficult behaviours.

Following an incident where staff struggled to manage an individual’s displays of aggression in a communal area, staff confirmed they were unclear about the actions to take. This demonstrated that staff were not always equipped with the skills and confidence needed to respond effectively. Although processes for feedback were in place, ongoing issues such as cleanliness and environmental risks were found repeatedly without timely resolution. These shortfalls limited the provider’s ability to fully enable staff to deliver safe, person-centred care.