Norden House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness,dignityand respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were aware of peoples support needs demonstrating a good knowledge of their preferences, wants and likes. One staff member said when describing how a person likes their drinks “[person’s name] prefers hot drinks, they like two sugars in coffee but none in tea.” Another staff member said, “If a person declines a shower or bath and wants a lay in, I make sure to go back at another point in the day and offer again so they don’t miss out.”

We observed people being treated kindly by staff who knew their backgrounds and promoted independence in daily life. For example, staff supporting a person to move to another area did so at the persons pace following their mobility needs outlined in their care plan.

People spoke positively about how they were treated by the staff. One person said, “Staff are very friendly here.” Another person said, “The staff have time to talk to me and are interested in my history, I really feel like I belong and the atmosphere is lovely.” A relative describing their loved one’s care said, “Staff are just lovely, they spend time talking to me and [loved one] it’s a relaxed environment, you can come and go anytime.”
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans were individualised, containing information about people’s backgrounds and communication preferences. They provided staff with guidance on topics people may wish to discuss to initiate conversations, alongside types of activities they enjoy. One staff member said, “[Person’s name] likes puzzles and [other person] likes to talk about a particular subject.” We observed daily life support detailed in peoples care documents being fulfilled during our assessment. For example a person was engaging in an activity that reflected their preferences.

Staff understood the importance of meeting people’s cultural and religious needs, which had been assessed before moving into the service. One staff member said, “We know what matters to people it’s in their care plans and they tell us about themselves.” Describing how these were being met a person told us, “They welcome people from all faiths which we practice here and value our differences.” During our assessment we saw people engaged in practices aligned with their religious beliefs.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment however people did not always have access to meaningful activities and occupation to promote and support their, health and wellbeing.

For example, the activity schedule was limited. One person said, “I would like to have more to do in the day, sometimes there’s not much on.” Management attributed this lack of variety to ongoing recruitment challenges for the Activity Coordinator role, which the provider was in the process of recruiting for. Furthermore, while care documents clearly outlined residents' personal preferences for engagement, these were not reflected in practice and daily care records.

People had personalised their living spaces making them their own and spoke about having choice in the care they received. For example, one person said, “I have things done the way I like them including my room being the way I want it.” Another person said, “They don’t over support me, I like my independence and they help me to keep it.” Staff we spoke with put importance on offering people choice. One staff member said, “Choice should always be given it helps people stay in control of their life.”

Staff were supporting people to mobilise using equipment when needed, for example stand aids were available which support people to retain their strength where appropriate.

Visitors were able to access the service to see people without restrictions, however some relatives told us about difficulties when trying to call their loved ones. one relative said, “it can be hard to call my [loved one’s name] sometimes no one answers the phone especially in the afternoon and evening.”
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.
A call bell system was in place for people to use when they need support from staff, we received mixed feedback from people about their experience when they needed to use it. One person said, “It often doesn’t work and I end up waiting too long when I need help to use the toilet, look I’ll show you.” During the assessment, we tested the call bell system and found that staff did not respond in a timely manner.
On another occasion during our assessment an inspector was asked by a person who was struggling with their mobility to find a staff member and said, “I pressed the call bell ages ago I’m desperate now.” A staff member was found and supported the person who said, “No bells are ringing.” Audits of the system had been undertaken but had failed to identify these issues.
Another person said describing the call bell, “If I use it, they do normally respond.”
We informed senior management who worked with the manufacture of the call bell system to identify these issues that caused staff not to always be alerted should a person use their call bell. Additional training was then provided to staff, alongside reviewing the devices used.
During our assessment we observed staff responding to a person experiencing emotional distress in a caring manner, providing support that lowered their anxieties around medication.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

An employee assistance program was available to all staff, which included support from mental health first aiders, stress management advice, signposts to other external support systems alongside access to medical professionals.

Dedicated areas were available with facilities for staff to utilise their break times, separate from the care environment.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles, for example one staff member said, “When I wanted to change my contracted hours, they supported me make the change.” Another staff member said, “There is enough staff here, so I have time to speak with people which I enjoy.”