20 March 2018
During a routine inspection
Norwood was registered on 19 January 2017. This is the services first inspection.
The registered provider, Bridge Pole Limited, operates a service providing support to younger adults with a learning disability in the community. Norwood provides respite care [short stays] to those people who also receive support in the community. Norwood is a three-bedroom property in a residential area of the city.
The registered provider also operates Brooklyn House. This is a two-bed property offering short stays to people who are also supported in the community. People receiving support may stay at Norwood or Brooklyn House. The staff employed work at either location and also support people in the community. Norwood and Brooklyn House share the same policies and procedures, registered manager and staffing. Norwood is also known as Wye House.
At the time of this inspection, 19 people used Norwood for respite care [short stays], up to two people at any one time.
We were unable to fully communicate directly with some people receiving support. We spoke with their representatives and relatives to obtain their views of the support provided.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This inspection took place on 20 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the registered manager is sometimes based at the services office. We needed to be sure that they would be available at Norwood.
People spoke positively about their experience of staying at Norwood. They told us they felt safe and they liked the staff.
Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if an allegation was made or they suspected abuse.
We found systems were in place to make sure medicines were stored and managed safely so people’s health was looked after.
Staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured people’s safety was promoted.
Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs.
Staff were provided with relevant training, supervision and appraisal so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.
The home was well maintained and was clean in the areas we saw.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.
People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied diet was provided, which took into account dietary needs and preferences so people’s health was promoted and choices could be respected.
Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and they were involved in decisions about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. Staff understood how to support people whilst promoting independence.
People were provided with, and supported to access, a range of leisure opportunities.
People said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.
There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.