Norton House

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 were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the service and reviewed regularly. The provider used a structured pre‑admission process to gather information about people’s health, care needs, safety and personal preferences. This information informed personal plans from the point of admission and helped ensure care was appropriate and individualised.

Assessments that we reviewed covered areas such as mobility, nutrition and hydration, skin integrity, communication needs, mental capacity and risks. Where people’s needs changed, assessments were updated and care plans amended. Where the providers own audits identified some gaps in documentation; actions were taken to address these, and updates were completed to ensure records reflected people’s current needs and guidance.

People and relatives were involved in assessments and reviews where appropriate. Information from families and health professionals was used to inform care planning and decision‑making. This helped ensure assessments were not static and reflected people’s lived experience and changing circumstances, supporting effective and responsive care.

People and their relatives told us they were consulted as part of the assessment process and involved in regular reviews of their care.

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.

Staff demonstrated strong knowledge of people and explained the rationale for care approaches clearly, including how they supported behaviour, daily routines and changing needs. Care plans were person‑centred, regularly reviewed and reflected people’s assessed needs.

Care planning reflected recognised guidance. This included following Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) recommendations to support eating and drinking and using appropriate approaches to monitor skin integrity and manage wounds. Staff knew when to seek advice and adapted care in line with professional guidance to reduce risk and support people’s wellbeing.

Medicines management reflected recognised guidance, with appropriate use of electronic systems, professional oversight and escalation when discrepancies were identified. Staff worked with health professionals to review medicines and respond to changes in people’s needs.

The service also participated in external research projects aimed at improving dementia care and quality of life. This showed a commitment to evidence‑based improvement and to using learning from wider research to inform and strengthen practice within the service.

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.

Staff and teams worked effectively together and with external professionals to support people’s care and treatment. Information about people’s needs, risks and any changes was shared through handovers, meetings and care records, which supported continuity and consistency of care across shifts.

Staff understood when to involve senior colleagues and external professionals and followed advice provided. External professionals confirmed staff worked collaboratively, completed required monitoring and responded promptly to requests for support. This helped ensure people received coordinated care and reduced the risk of gaps when needs changed.

People’s experiences reflected this joined‑up approach. One person told us, “They seem sensible and serious,” and relatives described staff as familiar and consistent. This continuity helped people feel settled, supported and confident in the care they received.

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.

Relatives described how staff responded when concerns were identified. One relative told us, “[Person] had a weight loss problem early on, but [their] weight has stabilised.” This showed staff recognised health risks, intervened appropriately and monitored progress to check whether improvements had been achieved.

Care records showed staff also monitored outcomes relating to skin integrity, mobility and emotional wellbeing. Actions taken included updating care plans, increasing monitoring and seeking professional advice where needed.

Activities and daily routines promoted physical movement, social interaction and emotional wellbeing, supporting people to maintain their overall health. This demonstrated care was actively reviewed and adapted to support people’s wellbeing over time.

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.

Systems were in place to review people’s health, wellbeing and quality of life, including care plan reviews, incident records and clinical monitoring. Where people’s needs changed, staff adjusted care and involved health professionals to support effective outcomes.

Staff monitored key areas such as nutrition, hydration, skin integrity, mobility and emotional wellbeing. When staff identified risks or concerns, they acted and managers reviewed this to check whether improvements had been achieved. This included updating care plans, increasing monitoring and seeking advice from external professionals where needed.

People described experiencing the benefit of this approach. One person told us, “I get all the help that I need.” The provider also used audits, incident analysis and reflective practice to review outcomes across the service. Learning was shared through meetings and handovers, and improvements were followed up to ensure they were embedded. This helped ensure care was responsive and that people’s outcomes were reviewed and improved over time.

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

Staff understood consent principles and involved people in everyday decisions. Mental capacity assessments and best‑interest decisions were in place.

Where people could not make certain decisions independently, relatives described being involved appropriately. One relative told us, “I gave my consent and I have no concerns.” This showed staff worked with families and followed appropriate processes to support decision‑making when people lacked capacity.