You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 September 2018

We inspected this service on 23 August 2018.

This was the first inspection of this service since the registered provider had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2017.

Norwood is a care home. The service is a semi-detached house in Southport, situated close to the town centre and its amenities. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Norwood has links to Arden College which provides specialist further education for young people aged 16-25 years of age with learning disabilities. Norwood currently provides accommodation for four young adults aged over 18 who have completed their education at Arden College. This was referred to as an 'After College Provision.' The support is provided 24 hours a day. The house was split into three self-contained flats and shared communal areas.

The home has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A registered manager was in post.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of our inspection four people were living at the home.

There was a process for analysing incidents, accidents and near misses to determine what could be improved within the home. We saw that when incidents and accidents had occurred, staff were fully debriefed and relevant professionals were updated as and when required.

There was personal protective equipment (PPE) available within the home, such as gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. These were available for staff to use when they supported people with their personal care or helped people complete cleaning tasks in their flats.

Medication was well managed and only administered by staff who had the correct training. We saw that one person chose to self-medicate and they were supported to do this by staff. This process was reviewed every few months by staff. Medication was stored securely within the home.

There were enough staff to help people with their day to day support needs, such as accessing the community or support with their personal care. There was some agency use, however the same staff were often requested. Staff told us they never felt short staffed and family members did not raise any concerns regarding staffing.

Staff records we saw demonstrated the registered manager had robust systems in place to ensure staff recruited were suitable for working with vulnerable people.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people who lived at the home were safeguarded from abuse. This included training for staff which highlighted the different types of abuse and how to raise concerns within the infrastructure of the organisation. Each person had specific instructions in place for staff to follow with regards to keeping them staff.

Risk assessments were detailed and specific, and contained a good descriptive account for staff to follow to enable them to minimise the risk of harm occurring to people who lived at the home. Detailed protocols were in place in relation to people’s challenging behaviour. These protocols were reviewed regularly by the person's keyworker and the registered manager.

The service was operating in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and consent was sought in line with people’s best interests. People’s mental health needs were assessed approp

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were in place and reviewed as part of people�s support needs. These were detailed and gave staff clear instruction of how to manage and minimise assessed risks.

There was enough staff on shift to meet people�s needs. The use of agency staff has decreased in the last few weeks.

Medicines were managed safely and stored appropriately. Medication was only given by staff who were trained to do so.

Staff were only offered employment once suitable pre-employment checks had been carried out which included an assessment of their suitability to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was effective.

The staff had the correct training to reflect their roles, this was evidenced in the training matrix.

Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

People were supported to eat and drink appropriately.

The service was working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and associated legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was caring.

People spoke positively about the staff and we saw staff treating people with kindness throughout our inspection.

People told us they were involved in the planning of their support. Support plans we looked at confirmed people had been consulted with.

Records and confidential documentation were stored securely, in a lockable cupboard.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were fully involved and included in all aspects of service provision.

Support plans were tailor made to suit the needs of the person; primarily focusing on their needs and how support could be adapted and changed depending on their wishes, preferences and aspirations.

There was a complaints procedure in place, however there had been no complaints.

People were supported sensitively with arrangements for end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 September 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a process in place to check the quality of the service. Action plans were formulated to address any highlighted concerns.

People spoke positively about the registered manager. The culture of the organisation was person centred, and the manager had a good level of knowledge of each person and their support needs.

Team meetings took place; additionally, people were encouraged to share their views regarding service provision.