Norton House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had a clear shared direction and positive culture focused on accountability, honesty and flexibility. The registered manager described these values as central to how the service operated and ensured staff understood them from recruitment onwards. The registered manager told us these values were “talked about at recruitment and reinforced with staff,” helping embed expectations across the team.

Managers promoted a culture where people’s individual needs were central to decision‑making. Recruitment and deployment were carried out with people in mind, ensuring staff skills and attitudes aligned with people’s needs. This supported a consistent, person‑centred culture rather than task‑driven care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People and relatives described leaders positively. One person told us, “They do a cracking job.” and a relative said, “I find the management team excellent.” These views reflected leaders being visible, approachable and responsive.

Managers were knowledgeable and supportive. The registered manager had extensive experience at the service and described structured induction and ongoing training, including shadowing, staged reviews and access to policies and online learning. Leaders were supported through regular line management and weekly meetings with other registered managers.

External professionals also described strong leadership presence. One district nurse told us, “If I need to speak to the registered manager and something is not being done, [they] will get staff to do what is needed,” and another said, “[Managers] are visible and help us.” Staff described hands‑on leadership from the management team. This visibility meant leaders understood pressures in the service and acted promptly to support safe, compassionate and person‑centred care.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service promoted an open culture where staff felt able to raise concerns. A whistleblowing policy was in place, and staff understood how to use it. The registered manager described an open‑door approach and said staff were encouraged to speak directly to management if they had worries or concerns.

Staff confirmed they knew how to raise issues and felt confident they would be listened to. One staff member explained they would raise concerns with a team leader and escalate to management if needed, showing awareness of whistleblowing and safeguarding routes. Staff said concerns were taken seriously and addressed promptly.

This approach reduced the risk of closed cultures and supported early identification of concerns. Leaders reinforced that speaking up was part of everyday practice rather than an exceptional action.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider promoted a respectful and inclusive workplace culture. Management demonstrated awareness of equality and diversity responsibilities and described clear expectations of mutual respect across the staff team. The registered manager reported no recent concerns about bullying or discrimination.

Equality, diversity and inclusion policies were in place and shared with staff. Leaders reinforced inclusive practice through induction, supervision and day‑to‑day oversight. Staff were supported to raise concerns if needed and to treat colleagues fairly and respectfully.

Recruitment and deployment practices supported an inclusive workforce, helping ensure staff had the skills and values required for their roles. This contributed to a positive staff culture and supported inclusive, respectful practice across the service.

The provider did not always have effective governance systems to ensure safe care was consistently delivered. While leaders were visible, approachable and involved in day‑to‑day practice, oversight arrangements did not consistently provide assurance that all staff were trained and competent for their roles.

Governance systems were in place to monitor quality, safety and performance; however, they did not always provide effective assurance of staff competence.

Systems had not been consistently effective in monitoring mandatory training and staff competence. The training matrix was not up to date, and records showed gaps in mandatory training, including among senior staff and team leaders. While some training was completed following feedback, oversight systems did not consistently ensure training compliance was maintained.

Governance systems did not always identify issues proactively. During the assessment, some call bells were not working, which meant staff were not always alerted when people required assistance. This issue was escalated and addressed promptly while inspectors were on site, demonstrating responsive leadership. However, it indicated that routine monitoring systems had not identified the fault earlier.

As a result, although leadership visibility and responsiveness were strengths, weaknesses in governance systems, including oversight of equipment checks and workforce competence, limited leaders’ ability to demonstrate full assurance.

Leaders were visible and responsive in day‑to‑day practice, including providing hands‑on support during busy periods, which helped maintain oversight of care delivery.

Leaders described arrangements for auditing, risk monitoring and escalation, and team leaders completed checks on equipment, medicines and care delivery, with findings reported to management. The registered manager described oversight of medicines through team leaders, with issues escalated, discussed at meetings and shared with head office. Leaders understood their regulatory responsibilities, including notifications, and used governance systems to identify and address risks, such as environmental and medicines‑related concerns, in a timely way.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked in partnership with external professionals and community resources. Leaders described regular multidisciplinary working with social services, district nurses and other professionals to support people’s needs and transitions.

Volunteers supported activities, and people were encouraged to access community opportunities. Leaders maintained oversight of referrals and partnership working, supporting joined‑up care and continuity.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider promoted learning and continuous improvement through reflective practice and regular review. Leaders used daily meetings, handovers and weekly meetings to review incidents, share learning and improve practice. Learning focused on improvement rather than blame.

Leaders shared good practice through managers’ meetings and received updates from head office. Quality assurance systems, including audits and reflective practice, were used to identify areas for improvement and monitor progress.

The service also demonstrated innovation through structured wellbeing improvement projects. Leaders used personalised engagement approaches to review what worked well, evaluate outcomes and embed learning into everyday practice. A holistic wellbeing framework supported small, person‑centred changes that improved emotional wellbeing, independence and quality of life for people they supported.