Norton Lees Hall & Lodge

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, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment of this key question under the new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. However, we observed staff interacting with people and whilst they were kind and caring, they were often task focused and did not always promote meaningful engagement. Staff had additional duties and told us, there was not always effective deployment and leadership of staff. This impacted on support people received and they did not always receive support in line with their care plans, which meant people's individual preferences and needs were not consistently reflected in their care received. The new management team were aware of this and were looking at providing appropriate leadership, guidance and support for staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. People’s wishes, preferences, choices and rights were not always clearly recorded, known or consistently respected, which meant their care did not always meet their individual needs.

One person told us, “They seem okay [staff], some can be a bit rough or lacking in empathy.” Another person said, “They [staff] seem a bit uninterested but they’re mostly okay, they’re kind.”

We also found people’s individual needs were not always consistently met. For instance, a relative told us the staff did not consistently check hearing aids were working, “[Name] kept telling me they couldn’t hear, when I checked the hearing aid it was not in correctly and the batteries were dead. I am continually asking them [staff] to check.” As a result, we could not be fully assured the person’s communication needs were being consistently met.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People did not always access the community or take part in meaningful activities. Activities were provided, however, there were none taking place at the time of our visit and the activity timetable displayed was out of date and dated June 2026. This was discussed with the manager, who explained the activity coordinator was on holiday, and care staff should have been providing some activities. However, care staff told us they did not have time to provide activities. The management team assured us this would be reviewed and they would look at ways to positively engage with people to provide more person-centred activities and promote independence.

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. For example, we identified televisions were very loud in 2 rooms and the people told us they could not access the controls to change channels or volume. The people in these rooms had no choice and had to listen to the television at a very loud volume, which could cause distress.

Relatives said staff did not respond to people’s needs. There was lack of baths and showers offered. One relative said, “[name] never has a shower or bath, just a wipe down.”

The provider had not always demonstrated they cared for and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff did not feel listened to, supported, respected or valued. Staff felt their wellbeing was not considered, and they told us they were very stressed and anxious due to the workload and the unrealistic expectations of the provider.

The service had very recently had changes in the management structure. The current management team were working to improve this so staff felt more valued.