Norton Street

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked at 2 quality statements in this key question and found some improvements were needed. Findings from previous assessments of the service have been used to develop an overall scoring for this key question. Peoples care plans were not reviewed consistently and did not always reflect people's current needs. No formal evidence-based recovery model was used at the service. The provider told us they used the recovery star model; however, staff were not trained in this model and people do not receive support based on this model. Meal planning and preparation was inconsistent. Weekly menus were in place and staff cooked meals in each property. Food records stated if people had eaten a meal or not, but no record was provided of the actual meal a person ate. This meant it was difficult to establish if people had their planned meals or whether alternatives were regularly being provided. Food and menu choices made by people were not always available. This was because supplies and ingredients for that particular day’s meal has already been used in another meal.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were supported to attend health and social care related appointments appropriately. Some people also received health care from visiting professionals such as district nurses.

Senior support workers were expected to review care and support needs, but staff felt they were unable to do this effectively without the right resources in place, therefore felt unable to flex and respond to peoples changing needs effectively. Staff also told us there was a distinct lack of meaningful reviews being completed by the mental health teams who commission places at Norton Street. This meant staff did not always have the professional evidence required to constructively argue when an increase in staffing may be required.

In keeping with the feedback we received from staff, we found care plans did not always reflect people's current needs and were not reviewed and updated consistently. We there was a good level of detail in some care plans regarding mental health relapse indicators, and where people had physical health support needs.

In a resident survey completed by the provider in 2023, people clearly expressed their views about how they wanted care and support to be provided. Comments included, “I would like support to visit my family more often”; “I would like to do some arts and crafts and I also like walks”; and “I’m not currently on a learning course but this is something that interests me.” Despite this feedback, the provider took no meaningful action to help people achieve their goals.

Staff consistently told us they simply did not have sufficient time or resources to effectively support people in this area.

No formal evidence-based recovery model was used at the service. The provider told us they used the recovery star model; however, staff were not trained in this model and people do not receive support based on this model.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.