Norton Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Most people and their relatives we spoke with were happy with the support they received. One person told us, “Staff do look rushed, but they do a fantastic job they are friendly and caring.” We observed staff interacting positively with people; however, due to the demand on staff, care provided was often task based. Staff we spoke with informed us that, due to time pressures, they were not always able to provide the level of support they wished they could. One staff member told us, “There is not enough staff, we aim to do 3-4 baths a day, but we don’t always have time.” Whilst some staff knew people well, the lack of information within care plans meant staff were not always aware of people’s life histories. People’s strengths were not always captured within care plans, and outcomes were not always set or appropriately recorded. There was no evidence that people were provided with the opportunity to set their own personal outcomes.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with told us that staff treated them kindly. However, when we reviewed surveys completed by people who lived in the home, we identified that some people did not always agree they were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff told us they didn’t always have the time to provide person centred care. Care was task based to ensure all people living at the home were up and dressed in the morning before breakfast.

Partners we spoke with informed us that they felt staff were caring and knew people well. The manager was more involved and was observed speaking to people and their relatives.

We observed that most staff were caring and appeared to know people well. However, staff had not always ensured peoples dignity was fully maintained. We observed one person’s dignity being compromised due to a lack of support in relation to their clothes. Additionally, people’s personal information was not always stored securely.

People told us the staff were lovely and that they were well looked after. One person said, “I have my nails done and my hair washed regularly by staff.” However, as people were not involved in their care planning, they were not able to express what support they required and how they would like that support to be implemented.

Some staff were aware of people’s needs and preferences, however due to lack of information within care plans, they did not always have an understanding of people’s life histories. Staff told us they would like to spend more time with people but often felt too rushed.

We observed some positive interactions between people who lived at the service and staff. Staff were caring, and we observed that some staff knew people very well. However, staff were busy and did not always have the time to sit with people. We observed one person asking a staff member a question, however the staff member did not respond, as they were supporting someone else and walked away. Additionally, one person waited for over an hour for their cigarettes because the staff member with access was busy with the medication round. We observed relatives visiting the home and having positive interactions with both staff and the manager.

Care plans lacked personalised information to ensure staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes. Care plans did not evidence people’s strengths.

Relatives we spoke with did not have any complaints regarding visiting their relatives, and there were no restrictions in place. Surveys completed with 4 people within the home identified that 3 out of the 4 felt their independence was promoted. We observed activities taking place, but we were not assured that everyone had access to them or that the activities were tailored to individual needs. There were no activities in the evening.

Staff we spoke with told us people were supported to see relatives and friends. Staff told us they could not always provide the level of care they wanted too due to the lack of staffing. Staff told us they were stretched. One staff member we spoke with told us, “Residents are well looked after here.”

We observed relatives visiting and spending time with people. During the assessment, we observed activities taking place, however, there was limited interaction.

Processes did not consistently support people in exercising choice and control over their care, treatment, and overall well-being. Care records lacked evidence that people’s understanding of their care and support had been regularly reviewed. Processes did not effectively provide people with access to activities or opportunities to engage with the local community, limiting their ability to promote and maintain independence, health, and well-being. Staffing levels and deployment were insufficient to support these practices.

People we spoke with expressed they were generally happy with their care. However, people also told us that staff were not always quick to respond to their needs. One person told us, “Staff do answer call bells but sometimes beeps for a long time.” Another person told us, “I press my buzzer but it usually too late by the time staff get here.”

Staff raised concerns regarding the lack of staffing and how this impacted their ability to provide support to ensure people’s needs could be met in a timely manner. However, staff we spoke with thought people were safe due to the care they provided.

During our visit, we observed one person being sent to bed by another person following an altercation, no staff were present to intervene or address the situation. This concern was promptly raised with the manager. Additionally, we noted that people were left waiting for periods of times before receiving support, as staff appeared hurried and under pressure. Furthermore, there was no designated staff room, preventing staff from taking undisturbed breaks away from interactions with colleagues and residents.

Staff we spoke with told us they were not provided with a staff room to ensure they could have an uninterrupted break. This often meant they either did not get a break or had their breaks disturbed.

Processes did not ensure the delivery of safe, effective, and person-centred care, as the provider did not adequately address the well-being needs of staff. Lack of staff facilities often prevented staff from taking regular breaks. Additionally, processes such as supervision and appraisals did not consistently provide staff with opportunities to offer feedback, raise concerns, or suggest improvements for the service or their work environment.