Normanhurst Care 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 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 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. However, improvements were needed to ensure people’s care plans were also person centred.

Staff were familiar with people's individual routines and likes and dislikes. They knew people well and understood the importance of providing person centred care and offering people a choice in relation to how they chose to spend each day and live their lives. One person told us, “I get up and go to bed when I want, they will give you an early shower if you want one or let you lay in if you want to. I have a shower every day, I get what I ask for so can’t complain."

Decisions about how people were supported were taken with them. Their care and support needs were regularly reviewed, and this included the “Resident of the Day” system. This system identifies one person daily to review their care plans, identify any changes in care and support needs. They also spent time with the chef, housekeeping and maintenance staff to identify any other areas they may like to make changes. This information was used to provide the person-centred support people required.

Although people’s care and support was person centred, we identified that improvements were needed to some aspects of care plans. These did not always reflect people’s care and support needs. Although staff were able to tell us about people’s life history this had not been recorded for everyone. The registered manager told us this was an area she would be reviewing with staff.

Daily records demonstrated what people had been doing each day. One staff member told us, “Everybody is given choices, we always offer alternatives.” Throughout the inspection we observed staff offering people choices and supporting them to make decisions.

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.

People were referred to relevant health and social care professionals when required. People received support from a consistent staff team, many of them having worked at the home for several years, providing continuity. Staff knew people well. They were regularly updated about changes in people’s care and support needs. Information was available and regularly shared with relevant health and social care professionals.

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

Although people had communication care plans these did not always include the relevant information. However, staff knew people well and how to communicate with them. We observed staff communicating with people in a way that supported their understanding. This included using short clear sentences and maintaining eye contact. Staff spent time with people, updating them and identifying any areas of concern.

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 were supported to provide feedback about the service, including ideas for improving and developing it. There were regular meetings. This included discussions about what was happening at the home, changes to the staff team and maintenance work. People were asked for feedback about the care they received including staff communication and whether people felt their privacy and dignity was promoted. There were discussions about activities and meals. Where points for further discussion or development were identified an action plan was produced and we could see actions had commenced to address issues people had raised.

There was a monthly newsletter which included information about activities, birthday celebrations and advice about keeping safe in the hot weather. There were also a range of puzzles and a monthly calendar which staff told us people used to highlight their own appointments for the month. People told us they did not have any complaints but were able to raise any concerns if they did have. One person told us, “I do feel confident doing so if there was an issue." Another person told us about a complaint they had raised previously, and this had been addressed appropriately.

There had not been any recent surveys to gather feedback from people, relatives or visiting professionals. The registered manager told us these were due to be sent out shortly.

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

The home had originally been a hotel. The reception area still reflected the hotel origins with a reception area that was manned by dedicated reception staff. People engaged with reception staff if they had any minor requests or concerns, not related to care. The reception area was seen as a point of contact for people. One person told us, “I generally contact reception when I want something, like to order different food.”

The dining room remained a hotel style restaurant where people chose which meal sitting, they would like each day. People were seen entering the dining room at a time of their choosing and sitting where they wished.

The home had adapted to ensure it met people’s needs. There was a passenger lift that allowed level access throughout the home. There was signage throughout the home to direct people. There was level access to the front of the home which had been developed with seating areas for people. People who wished to go out but needed assistance, were supported to do so by staff.

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.

Staff demonstrated they were aware of the importance of ensuring people were not subject to inequality or discrimination due to their age or health needs. They supported people to receive the appropriate care and support by building effective relationships with them. Staff worked with people to ensure they had equal opportunities to engage in activities each day. For example, we observed a weekly quiz. This took place as a group activity in the afternoon. However, during the morning the activity staff provided people, who did not want to join in with the group activity, a copy of the quiz. They were able to fill it in at their leisure and return to activity staff. People who were less able to complete the quiz alone were supported to do so. Throughout the day we heard people asking each other, ‘random,’ questions, but these were questions from the quiz. This demonstrated how staff worked with people to reduce the risk of discrimination.

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.

Some people’s care plans included information about their end of life wishes. This was based on information that people wished to share. We were told this would be reviewed as people’s needs changed. Some people had ReSPECT forms in place (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment). These included whether the person wished to be resuscitated in the event of a cardiac arrest.