Norden 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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, which were then captured in full in their care plans.

The provider supported people to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment, who were consulted when changes in their needs were identified, and where appropriate family members were included in these discussions. For example, when people living in the residential unit developed increased nursing needs, the provider reviewed these changes with the person and their family. Where it was agreed, arrangements were made to transfer people to the nursing unit so their specific needs could be met.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider supported the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We found there had been some delays in primary services being able to contact the provider which had led to delays in treatment plans for people. One person told us, “The home is lovely, but communication isn’t very good.” A health professional said, “Trying to improve communication has been challenging but is getting better.” The provider had recognised these issues and had taken steps to improve communication and joint working. Systems had recently been reviewed to ensure phone calls are consistently answered and relevant staff had access to communication systems to work with healthcare professionals.
To improve people’s outcomes, the provider was working with primary care services through regular weekly contact. This supported timely reviews of people`s health needs and promoted early escalation of health concerns.
 

The provider did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was not always available in formats that fully met people`s needs. For example, some written materials, (letters and books) were not readily available in formats to support people with visual impairments.
People told us they struggled to use their TV’s because the remote’s had small buttons. One person said, “I enjoy TV and find it frustrating needing someone else to turn it on and change the channels.” With their permission we addressed this with the provider, who recognised the need to improve how people are supported to access information and subsequently provided accessible TV remotes.
The provider had systems in place to ensure staff understood people`s preferred methods of communication and how to support their individual communication needs. For example, people had access to regular sight and hearing reviews, and any recommended aids were routinely checked.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise
complaints about their care, treatment and support.
We found people, their families and staff were able to share their feedback in person directly with the management and through resident meetings, however their voices were not always heard. For example, people had been voicing their concerns around issues they were having when using their call bells to alert staff to their needs. One person said, “I have told the previous manager and the current interim manager about the issue, but I don’t think they believe me.” The issue had not been identified and addressed at the time of our assessment.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed.
People’s individual needs including protected characteristics, were supported through appropriate care planning that contained details of how they would be met. Staff knew people’s preferences and how they wanted to receive treatment, care and support. A staff member said, “We support people whose level of care changes depending on the day, their independence is important to them, but when they need us, we are there to help.” The service was accessible to wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. During our assessment we observed staff responding to people’s needs equally. One person said, “Staff respond with care and compassion.”
 

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.
People shared positive experiences of the care they were receiving. For example, one person said, “I feel settled and comfortable. I feel as if I belong here.” The provider had taken account of people`s religious and spiritual needs, with a designated area within the lounge set aside for religious observance and practice, which was taking place twice a week. These spiritual services were open everyone who wished to attend regardless of their religious preferences. Another person told us, “This feels like home.”
 

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.

Staff had involved people in discussions around end-of-life care including resuscitation decisions, with involvement where appropriate from their relatives and relevant healthcare professionals.
People’s wishes, preferences, and what mattered most to them, were documented in their care plans. For example, ReSpect forms which ensure if a resident cannot make decisions during an emergency, their preferences for care such as, to go to hospital or not, or to receive CPR or not are known to staff, paramedics, and doctors. These were completed aligned with people’s choices to ensure the support they received was delivered according to their wishes and spiritual preferences.
At the time of our assessment no one was being supported with end-of-life care however the provider had ensured staff were trained and competent in the use of specific equipment and systems were in place to support people at end of life.