Norwood House Nursing Home

People and relatives spoke positively about the standard of care. Inspectors saw a warm, inclusive atmosphere and staff who understood people’s needs.

“People and relatives praised the standard of care and said staff were kind, caring and attentive.” from the report

Medicine systems and records were well organised. The home also improved the instructions for medicines given only when needed during the inspection.

“Medications systems were organised and records well completed.” from the report

Inspectors found safe staffing levels, suitable recruitment procedures and staff with appropriate training and support.

“The service made sure staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver safe care and support.” from the report

The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. People had access to exercise, activities outside the home and outings.

“There were close links with other health and social care professionals, including weekly meetings with the GP.” from the report

The home was described as spacious and homely. It had pictorial signs, different-coloured bedroom doors and outdoor areas designed to support people living with dementia.

“People living with dementia were supported with pictorial signage and menus.” from the report

Some people’s risks were not assessed or monitored safely. Four people who needed pressure-relieving mattresses had mattresses set incorrectly, increasing the risk of harm.

“We reviewed 4 people who had been assessed to need pressure relieving mattresses and the settings were not set correctly.” from the report

The home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act. Best-interest assessments were missing or not robust when restrictions such as bed rails and sensors were used.

“Where people lacked capacity and restrictions such as bed rails and sensors were in place best interest assessments had not always been carried out.” from the report

Audits did not always identify shortfalls in care records, accident forms and risk management. Staff also recorded events in different places, making records harder to check.

“The provider's systems did not always effectively monitor the service to drive improvements in service delivery.” from the report

Some risk assessments for people who became upset or agitated were not person-centred or fully completed. This could lead to inconsistent support.

“Where people presented with complex behaviours which resulted in them becoming upset and agitated risk assessments were not person-centred and records were not always fully completed.” from the report