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.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service. This breach reflects ongoing shortfalls in care planning and oversight.

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 ensure care was planned and delivered in a person-centred way. One person told us staff knew what they needed and kept them safe; however, this was not always consistently reflected in care planning or outcomes.

Care plans included information about people’s preferences, interests, and daily routines; however, these were not always consistently developed into meaningful, outcome-focused care. Identified goals were not always clearly planned or progressed, limiting how people were supported to achieve what mattered to them.

For example, individual goals relating to social and community activities had been identified but were not consistently actioned or updated, reducing opportunities for people to lead full and meaningful lives.

While staff understood people’s needs and supported them in line with their preferences in practice, this was not always reflected in care planning systems, meaning person-centred care was not consistently embedded.

Care was not always planned and delivered in a way that ensured continuity and consistency.

Care planning systems did not always ensure that information was consistently recorded, maintained and shared. Some assessments and key information were not fully reflected across all documentation, creating gaps in how care was understood and delivered.

Information required to support continuity of care, including during transitions between services, was not always comprehensive. This increased the risk that people may experience inconsistencies in their care when accessing other services.

Although staff worked to support people’s needs, these gaps in documentation meant care was not always joined up or consistently delivered.

The provider supplied information in accessible ways to support people’s understanding.

Information was made available in formats that supported people’s communication needs. Systems were in place to provide accessible information, including the use of technology to support understanding, such as adapting text size or using audio support.

The provider had introduced systems to improve communication accessibility for both people and staff, including training platforms that supported different languages and learning needs.

These approaches supported people to understand information about their care and make informed decisions.

The provider did not always ensure people were fully involved in decisions about their care.

Systems were in place to gather feedback, including resident suggestions and other engagement tools; however, these were not always used effectively to drive improvements.

Care planning did not consistently demonstrate how people’s views had been used to shape their care. While people were involved in day-to-day decisions, there was limited evidence that their feedback led to sustained improvements or changes in care planning.

This meant people were not always fully involved in influencing their care and support.

The provider did not always ensure people had equitable access to care and support that met their needs.

People were supported to access healthcare services; however, planning for individuals with more complex or diverse needs was not always consistently developed or recorded.

Care plans did not always include sufficient detail to support reasonable adjustments or tailored approaches, particularly where individuals had additional needs. This meant opportunities to fully remove barriers and support equitable access were sometimes missed.

Although systems were in place to support access, these were not consistently embedded across care planning and delivery.

The provider did not always ensure care was tailored to reduce inequality in people’s experiences and outcomes.

While some inclusive practices were in place, care planning did not consistently demonstrate how people’s individual needs, backgrounds and experiences were used to shape their care.

There was limited evidence that outcomes were routinely reviewed to ensure people experienced equitable care and opportunities. This reduced the provider’s ability to ensure all people achieved similar positive outcomes.

Care was not always consistently tailored to address potential inequalities.

People were not always supported to plan effectively for their future care and support.

Future planning, including end-of-life care, was not always consistently developed. While some plans included preferences and wishes, these did not always provide sufficient detail to guide staff, particularly in the event of sudden changes in health.

In some cases, future planning sections were incomplete, limiting how people were supported to consider and make decisions about their future care.

This meant people were not always fully supported to plan ahead or ensure their preferences would be followed.