Norwich

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. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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.
Care plans were detailed and updated promptly when things changed. The care plans we reviewed demonstrated that people had been involved in the review process, and people also told us they had contributed to them. A staff member told us that at the start of each care plan, there is a ‘Key Information’ section, which is a summary of each person’s individual preferences and routines. From reviewing these documents, we found them to be person-centred and informative.
Where people were living with a learning disability and/or autistic people, care was aligned with Right care, Right Support, Right Culture guidance, which supported people to make their own choices around how they wanted to live their lives.

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.
The service delivered care to a wide variety of people, all with different needs. The service had taken action to ensure their staff team were well trained and equipped to support people in a way which supported their preferences and needs effectively. This included, training, communicating with healthcare professionals and seeking feedback regularly.
Peoples care plans held information about the support they received from other agencies, for example specialist health services. This approach supported a good level of communication amongst all parties.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standards and was able to provide examples of how they had applied this in practice. For example, for a person who was unable to communicate verbally, methods such as picture boards and tablets had been explored. When these had not been successful, a smaller group of staff who knew the person well, and could understand the way in which they communicated had been allocated to care for them. This meant the person could be provided with information in a way which suited them.
 

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.
The service sent surveys to people to seek their views on the quality of the care they received. This offered an opportunity for people to express their opinions and provide feedback.
During care plan reviews, people were asked whether they had any concerns or suggestions to improve the service. This also offered the opportunity for people to share their views on a one-to-one basis as opposed to completing a survey. Where people had made suggestions, we saw that action had been taken to change things in response.
When speaking to us about how the service involved them in their care, a person told us, “I only have to ask” and things are done.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The registered manager told us they have a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination and spoke passionately about ensuring people from all walks of life can access the services they require.
The provider had policies in place such as equality and diversity, which ensured people were treated fairly and with respect. Staff and leaders undertook training to equip them with the skills necessary to recognise and address the potential barriers that people may encounter when accessing 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 registered manager told us their vision for the service was for people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. The service successfully supported people to achieve this, and people experienced positive outcomes. We heard examples from people receiving care that they were now more independent from the support they received from Manorcourt Care.
People told us they felt treated fairly and were supported by well trained and professional care staff.
 

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 records had recently been transferred onto a new system. The new system supported ‘Goal Setting’ for people. We saw examples of how this had been used to capture peoples plans for the future, such as staying at home for as long as possible, or achieving more personal aspirations. Whilst these goals were recorded, the service would benefit from further building on these and reviewing people’s progress regularly.
Care plans considered people’s wishes and preferences regarding future care and support. The service had gathered information relating to people’s wishes should their health decline.