Norton 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 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 was planned and delivered around people’s individual needs, preferences and routines. Care plans reflected communication needs, risks and preferences, including night‑time routines, eating and drinking support and mobility needs. This helped ensure care was tailored to people’s abilities rather than delivered through fixed routines.

People felt care met their individual needs. One person told us, “I feel that I am getting the care here to deal with the needs that I have.” A relative said, “[Person] gets all that personal care. I think all [person’s] personal needs are being met 100%.”

People were supported to access a range of social, creative and leisure opportunities, including group activities, one‑to‑one engagement, music, faith‑based activities and community outings. Staff adapted activities to suit people’s mood, motivation and abilities on the day, which helped promote social interaction, emotional wellbeing and a sense of purpose.

During the assessment, inspectors identified that bedroom doors were not personalised, and some people were not always able to recognise their rooms. This was discussed with the managers, and evidence was shared following the inspection showing actions taken to personalise doors. This demonstrated a responsive approach to improving people’s experience and supporting orientation and independence.

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.

The provider worked effectively with families, health professionals and social care partners to ensure continuity of care. There was regular involvement of district nurses, general practitioners and social workers when people’s needs changed, including for clinical monitoring, medicines support and care planning.

Relatives described good coordination with external services. One relative told us, “They deal with all external appointments.”

This complemented feedback from visiting professionals and showed people experienced coordinated and continuous care. Visiting district nurses described staff as responsive, proactive and collaborative. One told us, “Staff are always there to help us when needed,” and another said, “If we ask for someone, staff do come and explain. They are proactive, even if a patient is not on our list.” This demonstrated staff did not limit support based on narrow criteria and worked flexibly to meet people’s needs.

Staff followed professional advice and completed required monitoring, such as repositioning charts and clinical observations, which supported safe and joined‑up care. External professionals told us they could escalate concerns to the registered manager when needed and that actions were taken promptly.

People were supported by familiar staff wherever possible. Information about people’s needs, risks and changes in condition was shared through handovers and meetings, reducing duplication and supporting smooth transitions. This helped ensure people experienced consistent, coordinated care and positive outcomes.

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

People and their representatives received clear information before and during their stay. Pre‑admission information explained care arrangements, medicines, safeguarding, complaints and contact details.

People said staff shared information in ways that met their needs, mainly through day‑to‑day conversations and explanations during care. One person told us, “For my level of care, the communication side of things is very good.” This showed information was shared in a way that supported understanding and reassurance.

Relatives described being kept informed when needed. One relative said, “They will phone me or email us if there are any issues or queries, which is very reassuring.” This helped relatives feel involved and confident in the care provided.

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.

People and relatives were encouraged to share feedback and raise concerns. Feedback from people and their families was consistently positive and showed people felt listened to.

Complaints and concerns were recorded, investigated and responded to. Learning from feedback was shared with staff and used to improve practice.

People felt listened to and said staff responded when they raised concerns or needed support. People told us they could speak to staff or senior colleagues if something was worrying them. One person said, “If I did have a complaint, I would speak to the manager.” Another person said they had raised a concern previously and it was addressed, explaining, “I have had to raise a complaint, and it was all dealt with.”

Relatives also described confidence in raising concerns. One relative told us, “If I did need to, I would pick up the phone or email straightaway,” and another said they felt staff would take concerns seriously, adding, “I think they would take it seriously. I have been impressed with how sensitive and caring they have been.”

People were involved in discussions about their care in ways that reflected their needs and preferences. Some residents described informal, one‑to‑one conversations rather than formal meetings.

This showed staff listened to people, took concerns seriously and involved people and relatives in decisions about care in ways that worked for them.

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

The provider took steps to ensure people could access care and support in ways that met their needs. Care plans reflected individual requirements related to mobility, cognition, communication and health conditions, which helped ensure equitable access to care and activities.

Staff adapted their approaches to support people’s individual needs. People told us they could speak to management if they needed help to understand or arrange care. One person said, “If I wanted to do something and was uncertain about it, I would speak to a manager.”

Relatives described receiving information in advance to support informed access to the service. One relative told us, “They came to visit my relative at their flat before they came here and gave us all the information we needed.

Staff and leaders 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 provider recognised and responded to people’s diverse needs and preferences to support equitable experiences and outcomes. People told us their religious and cultural needs were respected. One person said, “Someone from the church comes round every Thursday to hand out Holy Communion,” and another told us, “I am keen on art and there is nothing stopping me doing art if I want to.”

People and relatives described positive communication and reassurance, particularly where people needed emotional support. One relative told us, “They communicate with my relative really well and are very reassuring.”

People were also asked about personal preferences linked to dignity and identity. One person said, “I do prefer a female carer, and I have been asked about that.” This showed staff considered individual needs and preferences to reduce inequality in people’s experiences.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to discuss future wishes, including end‑of‑life preferences, where appropriate. Care plans included advance care planning information and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions where these were in place. These decisions had been discussed and agreed with the person and/or their relatives. They had agreed to these decisions.

Care plans were reviewed and updated as people’s needs or mental capacity changed, with involvement from families and health professionals where appropriate. Where people chose not to engage in future‑planning discussions, this was respected and recorded. Staff worked with palliative care teams to keep people pain free and comfortable and ensured their choices were respected

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions about future care, the provider followed Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles. Managers monitored and worked with external professionals to ensure arrangements remained lawful, proportionate and appropriate as circumstances changed.