Norwood House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and support choices. They did not always work in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs. While care plans included some personal preferences and goals, these were not consistently achieved or updated. People were involved, and they told us they could make day-to-day choices and felt generally supported. One person said, “The staff are very nice. It’s like a hotel.” Another told us, “The staff are lovely, they know me well after the length of time I’ve been here.” However, gaps in care planning and limited follow-through on identified goals meant care was not always proactive or fully person-centred. This reduced opportunities for people to influence their care and achieve what mattered most to them. For example, one person’s goal to go to the cinema had not been achieved in over a year, and end-of-life planning and consent were incomplete for several people.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. While people were supported to attend healthcare appointments and staff recorded activities and visits, care planning was inconsistent. For example, one person’s initial assessment had not been transferred into their main care plan, and hospital passports lacked key details about learning disability and mental health needs. Positive Behaviour Support strategies were not embedded despite repeated behaviours, and end-of-life planning and consent were incomplete for several people. Recorded individual goals were found to be overdue which resulted in reactive rather than proactive care and support. This limited opportunities for some people to experience continuity and to achieve what mattered most to them.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People told us they were aware of their care plans, and we saw some examples of documentation that included personal preferences and goals. The provider had an Accessible Information Policy in place and offered reasonable adjustments to meet communication needs. Easy-read versions of documents were available, using simple wording and pictures to aid understanding. Staff could also use technology such as phones, tablets, and laptops to increase font size, change colours, or adjust backgrounds for better readability. Where needed, information could be read aloud to people, either by staff or using assistive technology, ensuring a personal and inclusive approach. For staff, systems allowed dictation to support those with spelling or grammar difficulties, and a new training platform offered content in over 100 languages with audio playback, helping staff with dyslexia or where English was not their first language. These measures demonstrated a commitment to accessibility and compliance with the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring people and staff had the information they needed in a way that worked for them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Systems such as residents’ meetings, questionnaires, and a “What you said, what we did” board were in place; however, these were not always used effectively. These shortfalls meant people were not always fully involved in shaping their care or influencing improvements. People told us they were aware of their care plan, and some goals were discussed, but there was limited evidence that people were consistently informed about changes made because of their feedback.

Care records showed people had access to a range of health and care services, and referrals were made for treatment or advice when needed. People were supported to attend appointments with professionals such as GPs, opticians, and podiatrists, and adjustments like easy-read documents and font changes were available. However, planning for complex needs was inconsistent. Care plans for people with learning disabilities and autism did not always include essential details, and strategies to support behaviours that challenge were not embedded. While technology and multilingual training were available to remove barriers, these were not consistently applied in care planning. This meant reasonable adjustments were not always identified or implemented, limiting equitable access to care and opportunities.

The provider did not always actively listen to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. People were supported to access community facilities such as walking and shopping. Staff helped individuals understand their rights through discussions and accessible formats. However, this was not consistent across all areas of care. There was no clear evidence that people were supported to understand voting or plan for broader life goals. Although some inclusive practices were in place, gaps in planning and follow-through meant care was not always tailored to reduce inequality or enable people to lead full, meaningful lives.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life, so they could make informed decisions about their future care and support. While some personal goals were recorded, such as getting a library card or framing artwork, broader planning was inconsistent. For people with a learning disability or autism, there was no clear evidence of structured support to make decisions about future care, including potential medical and psychological needs, or wishes for end-of-life. These gaps meant people were not consistently supported to plan and make informed choices about their future wellbeing. Where individuals did not wish to discuss end-of-life planning, there were no documented steps for what to do in an emergency medical situation, and no plans to revisit the subject in a different way.