Norwood Green Care Home

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 service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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.

Staff listened carefully, respected people’s choices and adapted support in ways that promoted independence, dignity and emotional wellbeing.

Care was consistently person‑centred and responsive. Staff regularly reviewed care plans to reflect changes in people’s needs, routines and wishes, and respected people’s mental capacity and right to choose, including when people declined aspects of care. People and relatives felt fully involved in decisions. One person said, “They treat me as an individual,” and a relative told inspectors, “Nothing is hidden from us, no decisions are made without us.”

Staff showed creativity and commitment in adapting care and activities to people’s abilities, interests and life histories. For example, one person was supported to take part in adapted chair‑based yoga following a fall, which helped rebuild confidence and mobility while working towards personal goals linked to family life. Another person with sight loss was supported to read and respond to family letters, preserving independence, identity and emotional connection.

The service consistently went beyond routine care to create meaningful moments that improved wellbeing. Staff supported shared creative activities with family members, used animal‑assisted therapy to reduce distress and encouraged calm, and tailored activities for people who did not usually engage. These examples showed a deep understanding of individuals and demonstrated a culture of personalised care that achieved outcomes that mattered to people.

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. Care plans reflected the involvement of relatives, unpaid carers and external services, showing how support was shared and reviewed when needs changed.

Staff had the skills to meet people’s needs. Training and induction records showed staff received specialist and role‑specific training, which helped them understand the people they supported and provided consistent, person‑centred care.

Rotas supported continuity by ensuring people were cared for by familiar staff wherever possible. People and relatives said this helped staff understand preferences and respond quickly to changes, reducing anxiety and promoting trust.

The provider communicated effectively with relatives and external services. Records showed regular updates, involvement in reviews and communication with local authorities or integrated care boards about eligibility and funding. Managers described clear processes to review care delivery when needs changed, supporting continuity and joined‑up care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider ensured people received information in ways they could understand, which supported involvement, choice and informed decision‑making. Systems were in place to identify, record and share people’s information and communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Care plans showed staff recorded people’s communication needs and adapted how information was shared, including taking time to explain things verbally and supporting people who needed help with written information. This helped people understand their care, daily routines and any changes.

People and relatives felt well informed and involved. People said staff explained things clearly, and relatives told inspectors they were kept updated and involved before decisions were made. Staff understood their responsibilities and shared information appropriately during handovers, reviews and transfers, supporting consistent, person‑centred care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives felt able to raise concerns and provide feedback, and most knew how to do so. One relative told us, “If you say something about it, they are fine and listen.” People and relatives described raising issues directly with staff or managers, and records showed the service used residents’ meetings, surveys, suggestion boxes and informal discussions to gather feedback. Relatives felt confident they could speak up and that issues raised were often taken seriously and resolved, including where equipment concerns or missing items were addressed promptly following discussion with managers.

The service responded to feedback and complaints, with actions taken and learning recorded. Complaints raised by and were investigated, and outcomes shared with families and actions were taken, such as staff retraining, replacing items and addressing environmental concerns. Many complaints were partially or fully substantiated, and families were generally satisfied with the responses provided.

Compliments reflected that people and relatives valued being listened to and seeing staff respond.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were able to access healthcare professionals promptly, and staff took effective action to ensure continuity of care when people’s health needs changed. A person told us, “The doctor comes to me if I need them”. Another person told us that the opticians attended to them in the home for regular eye checks. The joint working with a range of external healthcare professionals, including GPs, opticians, dentists, chiropodists, community nursing teams and mental health services, ensured people received timely support regardless of mobility or health needs.

Staff supported people to attend appointments and ensured outcomes were followed up. People and relatives described hospital admissions, discharges and follow‑up care as well coordinated. Care records showed information from health appointments and hospital discharges was documented and used to review and update care plans, helping to maintain continuity.

This demonstrated that staff proactively supported access to healthcare and responded appropriately to changes in people’s health, with professional advice used to guide ongoing care.

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.

The service recognised and responded to people’s diverse needs to promote fair experiences and outcomes.

Care plans recorded people’s cultural, religious and communication needs. People were supported to practise their faith, attend church services or receive visits from religious leaders. One person told us, “I get to go out to church,” and others said, “The priest comes here.” Culturally appropriate food choices were made available to some people at least 3 times a week.

Survey feedback showed people felt their identity and background were respected, supporting equitable experiences.

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.

Care planning processes supported people to plan for the future. Care records showed advance care planning, mental capacity assessments and discussions about future wishes were completed where appropriate. Relatives told us staff were open to having these conversations. One relative said, “I am glad you asked me as it’s something we should all discuss as a family.”

People and relatives were involved in planning for the future and felt able to contribute to decisions about care. Some relatives told us they had seen care plans and were involved in regular reviews, with one relative saying they reviewed the care plan every 6 months and were happy with the arrangements. This demonstrated that planning for future care was in place and developing, with opportunities to continue building on timely discussions as people’s needs changed.