Norwood

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service, and people and their relatives were consulted as part of this process. The assessment process considered people’s health wellbeing, communication and their care preferences. Relatives told us that communication was good and they were kept updated with any changes to their family member’s health and wellbeing.

Care plans were detailed and informative. Monthly reviews on people’s needs were undertaken and care plans amended accordingly.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported to make choices about how their care was delivered. We observed staff supporting people and offering choices, including whether they wished to attend activities and what they would like to eat.

People were supported by a consistent team of staff and staff spoken with were able to describe the needs of the people they supported, and the help they required.

People had enough to eat and drink to prevent malnutrition or dehydration and were supported to manage their dietary needs and associated risks. People told us that they enjoyed the meals provided and we observed that most people ate well. Staff were available to support people at mealtimes and the support provided was appropriate and well paced.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Care plans and other documentation were recorded on the provider’s electronic system and staff had access via a mobile device. Where necessary this information was shared with other professionals.

Staff described how duties were allocated each day but told us how they worked well as a team which ensured that people’s needs were met promptly. One told us, “We are like a family, I love this place…we all get on well.” Staff told us there was good communication both within the team and with senior management.

The feedback we received from health and social care professionals was that the service worked well with them to support people.

The management team had regular flash meetings where the representative from the different teams within the service came together to discuss the plans for the day to ensure care and support was integrated.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported in making choices about their own health needs and told us that the staff would organise an GP appointment if needed. The service had regular visits from a representative from the local surgery which provided continuity for people.Staff knew when to refer people to professionals such as speech and language team if a person required assistance with communicating or dietary needs. One member of staff told us, “If we notice any changes in a person we speak to the senior, they take it seriously and call the GP….we use floor mats and sensors….we make sure the surroundings are safe.”

We saw the service worked with a range of professionals including the CHESS team which works to prevent avoidable hospital admissions for care home residents. Professionals told us staff worked well with them to ensure people’s needs were met and followed any guidance they recommended.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Relatives told us staff monitored their family members’ health effectively and took prompt action if they identified concerns. Nationally recognised tools such as MUST and Waterlow were used to monitor people’s weight and skin to ensure that any deterioration was promptly identified.

Staff told us they discussed people’s care needs regularly as a team in order to identify and address any concerns or changes and ensure people’s care needs continued to be met appropriately. They were proud of the impact that they made on people’s wellbeing and support. Several relatives told us their family members’ wellbeing had improved since moving to the home. One told us how staff completed exercises with their family member and their family member was able to spend periods out of bed after being cared for in bed for 10 months. Another relative said, “My relative has improved a lot since they got here. They are mixing with people, being here is good for [my relative’s] mind, and they have put on weight.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care and had completed training in The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), to aid their understanding of people’s rights. Where necessary, assessments had been carried out to determine whether people had capacity to make informed decisions about their care. If people did not have capacity to make decisions, appropriate procedures had been followed to ensure any decisions made were in people’s best interests.