Normanhurst Residential 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 registered under the current legal provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through care that was responsive to changes in people’s circumstances.

This service scored 68 (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 changes in their needs.

Care plans were not always updated when people’s needs changed, and there was limited evidence that people were fully involved in decisions about changes to care and support. Observations showed care was sometimes task‑led rather than tailored to individual need. During the lunchtime observation, staff often assisted people without speaking to them or checking how they wanted support. This included mashing food and feeding people without explanation or encouragement, which did not support people’s independence. The overall experience lacked meaningful interaction and did not reflect individual preferences. Managers took immediate action to address these observations with staff.

Some people told us staff knew them well over time and responded to their needs. We observed kind and respectful interactions. Staff offered choices of food and drinks, and demonstrated that they knew people well. Staff were also able to communicate with people in their preferred language, which supported engagement and comfort.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local community, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity.

Care plans showed how families, advocates and professionals were involved in supporting people. Staff worked closely with GPs and other healthcare professionals, including weekly GP rounds, to ensure people received coordinated care. Information from partners was shared with staff and reflected in risk assessments, supporting continuity when people accessed other services or returned from hospital.

This helped ensure people experienced coordinated care that met their ongoing needs. People told us staff were usually available and knew what they were doing. Where people’s health needs changed, staff contacted health professionals appropriately. A relative described how staff contacted the GP when their family member became unwell and involved them in decisions.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Care plans clearly described people’s communication needs, including visual impairment, dementia and aphasia. Staff had guidance on how to communicate effectively, such as using short sentences, observing body language and offering pictorial menus. Policies reflected the Accessible Information Standard, and information was available in alternative formats, including large print.

Staff had received training in communication and information governance. Relatives told us they received regular updates about their family member’s care and wellbeing. One relative explained they used an electronic app to see information about food, health appointments and daily activities. This supported people to understand information, remain orientated and engage with their care.

Information was also displayed within the home, including daily menus, the day and date, and planned outings. This supported orientation for people living with dementia.

Systems were in place to enable people to provide feedback and raise concerns. However, these were not always effective.

The provider had opportunities to gather feedback, including resident meetings, QR codes and complaints process. Residents’ meetings were held regularly to provide opportunities for people to share their reviews about the service.However, we identified that these forums did not consistently capture or reflect the feedback we received. Feedback from people using the service was mixed. Some people told us activities and food did not reflect their preferences or expectations. One person said, “Occasionally there is painting, nothing you really want to do. I’d like to do cooking, I think I did it here once.” Another person told us, “I like cheese on toast but you can’t ask for that.” This meant that not all feedback was identified or used to inform wider service improvements. The provider responded positively to feedback when it was identified. They took action to address concerns and identify improvements.

One person provided feedback about aspects of the environment in relation to their visual impairment. The provider had recognised these concerns and had started to implement improvements to enhance accessibility. They told us, “I don’t like the building, it’s dark and depressing. I sit up in my room a lot as I find downstairs too dark, that’s why I go to the conservatory to eat my lunch. The lounge is too dark and I’m frightened there might be something on the floor to trip over. It gets to about 6 o’clock and I can’t see so I can’t stay downstairs and it’s dark in my room too.”

Complaints were recorded appropriately, and managers maintained clear oversight, including documenting actions taken in response. This supported accountability and demonstrated that concerns were addressed and followed through

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

Care plans included reasonable adjustments to support people with sensory, mobility and communication needs, such as assistance with booking appointments and attending healthcare services. Staff supported people to attend hospital and GP appointments, and professionals were contacted promptly when concerns were identified. Although some communal areas were less accessible for people with limited mobility, staff arrangements helped reduce the impact of this on people’s access to care and treatment. The provider ensured activities provision was available across different areas of the service.

People told us they could access staff when they needed help, including at night. Equipment such as walking frames were available and used to support people’s safety and independence.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were more likely to experience inequality and tailored care in response.

Care plans recorded people’s protected characteristics, including religion and cultural needs, and staff adjusted care accordingly. For example, dietary choices were discussed sensitively, and staff explained food options clearly to support informed choice.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training, which supported equitable experiences and outcomes for people living at the service. This supported people to feel respected and have their individual beliefs and preferences reflected in the care they received.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care, so they had time to make informed decisions about their future.

Care plans included information about advance decisions and people’s wishes should their health change. Where people chose not to engage in advance care planning, this was respected and recorded. Staff had received end-of-life care training and policies supported sensitive, inclusive discussions involving families and professionals when appropriate. This helped ensure people’s future needs and preferences were considered and respected.

Relatives told us they were involved in planning and decision‑making, including where they held power of attorney. They felt confident staff would respond if needs changed.