You are here

Archived: Norman Power Centre Good


Inspection carried out on 9 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection. At our last inspection on 22 July 2013 we found the provider was meeting all the standards we assessed.

Norman Power is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 32 people. On the day of our inspection 24 people lived at the home. People living there had a range of conditions related to old age that may include dementia. Accommodation is purpose built and arranged over one floor.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. These needed to be more robust to ensure that records relating to people’s care were well maintained.

People felt safe using the service and they were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had systems in place to minimise the risk of abuse. Staff were trained to identify the possibility of abuse occurring. Staff understood their responsibility to take action to protect people from the risk of abuse and how to escalate any concerns they had.

Risks to people were minimised because there were arrangements in place to manage identified risks with people’s care.

Staff were recruited in a safe way. We found that there were enough staff to support people and meet their needs in a personalised manner.

People had their medicines when they needed them. Arrangements were in place to ensure the management of people’s medicines was safe.

Staff were aware of how to support people’s rights and seek their consent before providing care and ensured people were supported to make day to day choices.

People were cared for by staff who were trained and supported so that they could carry out their role effectively.

People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and respectful and knew them well.

People had been involved in the planning of their care and received care and support in line with their plan of care.

People and visitors to the home told us that the management of the home was friendly and approachable. Staff told us that they felt supported in their role.

Inspection carried out on 30 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection there were a total of 30 people living at the home. We spoke with eight people, three relatives and a friend of one person who was using the service. Some people were unable to verbally share with us their views about their care, we used different ways to evidence their experiences such as observing care, speaking with relatives and looking at their care records.

We spoke with six members of staff, this included staff providing direct care and team leaders. The registered manager was on leave on the day of our inspection.

Care was person centred and delivered in a manner that promoted people's dignity and respect. One person told us, "You can do as you please depending on how you feel, there is no pressure".

Care was planned and delivered to ensure people's safety and welfare. One person told us, “I like to stay in my room but staff are always there when I need them". This meant that people experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Safeguarding procedures were in place so that staff would recognise and report any allegations of abuse to protect people from the risk of harm.

People were cared for by staff who were supported, supervised and trained to deliver care to an appropriate standard. One person told us, "Staff are nice and kind".

Systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Inspection carried out on 20 June 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 20 June 2012 we spoke with three people who lived at Norman Power Centre. Some people were unable to verbally share with us their views about the care they received due to their health conditions or complex needs. We were able to look at other areas for evidence to support their experience such as sampling a set of care records and speaking to staff.

We also used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We used SOFI with five people living at the home.

We spoke with four members of staff two of whom were senior staff. The manager was on leave on the day of our visit however another manager for the provider who was covering was available to speak with us.

On the day of our visit there were a total of 29 people resident this included two people who were in hospital due to ill health.

We saw there were four units within the service each with a separate lounge, there were also two dining areas. The manager explained people had a choice of the units and people were able to sit and eat where they pleased.

We observed people were relaxed and appeared settled. People reported staff were caring and approachable. One person commented staff were “Very helpful”.

We saw evidence that there were activities and events available to people. During lunch time we saw people received their chosen meal which they enjoyed.

We did not see evidence of how staff training needs were identified and monitored to ensure staff developed and maintained appropriate knowledge and skills. We did not find evidence to suggest this impacted negatively on the care given to people. All the four members of staff we spoke with had awareness of safe manual handling and the prevention of falls areas relevant to the people they cared for. Staff we spoke with also understood what constituted abuse and said that they would be able to recognise and report poor practice.

We saw that staff responded appropriately to the needs of people and knew the people they were caring for. Staff were able to identify people who needed extra support. This demonstrated people were cared for by staff that knew them well.

We saw some evidence of quality monitoring, however systems were not in place to ensure the service was learning and improving as a result of findings. We did not see evidence of how people such as relatives acting on behalf of the people living at Norman Power Centre had their views considered.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)