Norlands Nursing Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans and risk assessments described people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Staff told us these records were regularly updated, readily available and easy to follow. They said the information provided clear guidance to support the delivery of personalised care. We observed staff providing care and support in line with the information recorded in people's care plans and risk assessments.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Managers and staff understood the importance of collaborative working and maintained positive relationships with a range of professionals. People received consistent support from staff who knew them well.

We saw evidence of joint working in people's care records. A health professional told us, “I enjoy going into the home, I know things will get done, they follow advice and individuals get good care.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had communication care plans that identified any hearing or speech difficulties and guided staff on how to communicate effectively with them. People received regular support from audiology and optometry services, which helped reduce barriers to communication.

The home used appropriate signage to support people living with cognitive impairment. Staff used photographs and large-print information to aid understanding. A notice board displayed photographs of staff on duty each day to help people identify who was supporting them. One staff member communicated with a person in their first language. Staff also used electronic translation services when the person reverted to their first language.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service held regular residents’ and family meetings and used surveys to gather feedback.

People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident these would be addressed. One person told us they were unhappy sharing a room with another person. The manager acted on the concern. The person told us, “(Manager) was great about this”.

Relatives told us the service communicated effectively and kept them informed about their relative’s health and wellbeing. They said this helped them feel involved in their relative’s care and were confident managers would listen to and act on any concerns. One relative said, “I do (know how to complain) and would do so immediately and I know they would take me seriously which is reassuring. My (relative) wouldn’t be there if they didn’t meet their needs.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service recognised barriers that could affect people’s health, care and support needs.

Managers ensured people could access the services they needed. Staff arranged visits from healthcare professionals within the service where possible and organised transport and staff escorts when people needed to attend appointments elsewhere.

We saw evidence of healthcare appointments in people's records, including the outcomes of visits and plans for future appointments

Staff and managers actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service promoted equality and upheld people's human rights. Staff considered the needs of people with protected characteristics, made reasonable adjustments where needed and supported people in a way that avoided discrimination. No concerns about discrimination were raised during the assessment. Staff completed relevant training and the workforce reflected a range of backgrounds and experiences.

People were supported to plan for significant life changes and make informed decisions about their future, including their end-of-life care.

We saw evidence of multi-agency decision-making that respected a person's wish not to be admitted to hospital. Family members were involved in these decisions.

Where appropriate, staff discussed people's end-of-life wishes with them and/or their families and recorded these in care plans. Staff approached these conversations sensitively and at appropriate times. All staff had completed end-of-life training, which supported them to provide effective care.

Managers and nurses worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure people received timely support and appropriate medicines when needed.