Norton Lees Hall & Lodge

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. This is the first assessment of this key question under the new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff did not always appear to know people or understand their needs and were often task focused and did not always deliver care in line with people’s care plans and personal preferences. One relative said, “We seem to have a lot of agency staff at the moment. They don’t know people and messages don’t seem to get passed on.”

The new management team had identified staff lacked support, leadership, training and mentoring and were devising ways to improve this. People were supported to personalise their bedrooms and had access to items which provided comfort to them such as photos and mementos

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’s needs were identified in their care plans and there were good links with health and care services. There was a detailed information which could be used to ensure continuity of care, for example, if people were admitted to hospital. However, the management team were aware reviews and updates to care plans needed to be completed in a timely way, which, at the time of our inspection, did not happen.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Information was available for people throughout the service to assist people to understand daily information. However, they were not in formats easily accessible to people. There were no picture menus to assist people with meal choices and no signage to support people living with dementia.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People knew who to contact if they needed to raise any concerns but had felt in the past they had not been listened to. One relative said, “I submitted a complaint on 2 July and have still not had a response 2 weeks later.” However, relatives said they were being listened to by the new manager and felt more optimistic things would improve. The management team were planning a relatives and residents meeting to improve engagement and communication.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The management team were working with staff to improve competencies and ensure they understood how and when to make referrals and contact health and social care partners where required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People did not always receive care which reflected their individual needs and preferences. One person said, “I would like to do some gardening, but it never happens.” Due to lack of leadership and oversight staff did not always follow people’s preferences for care and support. Improvements were required, the new management were aware of this and were working with staff to improve outcomes for people.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including a medical emergency or at the end of their life. We saw people had end of life care plans in place.