Norton Lodge Care Home Ltd

“Who the service is for”

“The service supports older adults with personal care and support. Key findingsWe carried out this assessment on 23rd June. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“At this assessment we found people received kind and compassionate care from enough trained staff who knew them well. People told us they felt safe living at Norton Lodge. Safeguarding processes were robust and kept people safe from abuse and neglect. Staff and the management team were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and reported any concerns in a timely manner. Staff we spoke with said, “Not all abuse is physical, we have a duty of care, I would approach [manager] straight away, we have really strict processes in place.””

“People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staff demonstrated good knowledge around the MCA, a staff member we spoke with said, “Consent is key, I always ask permission, everything is the persons choice.””

“Medicines were managed well. People were supported by trained staff to receive their prescribed medicines safely and at the right time. Medicine audits identified areas for learning and improvement.”

“Risks were assessed and managed well. Risk reduction measures were in place to ensure people received safe care and support. People were supported to take positive risks to enable them to live as independently as possible and in their chosen way. The registered manager had systems in place to ensure the environment in which people lived was homely and safely maintained.”

“The service placed person-centred, dignified care at its core, with the registered manager leading by example and staff consistently showing compassion and kindness.”

“Staff worked well with other professionals to ensure people received responsive timely care. A professional we spoke with said staff referred people for treatment without delay to improve their health outcomes.”

“People were supported to maintain their interests and hobbies, develop friendships, maintain family relationships, and practise their religious beliefs. This ensured people had equitable experiences and outcomes.”

“The registered manager and deputy manager had effective oversight of the service. They displayed excellent knowledge of the people they supported. Staff told us the management team were approachable, kind and caring, this had a positive impact on staff wellbeing and the culture of the service. Governance systems were robust and identified areas for improvement ensuring lessons were learnt to drive service improvement.”