Norbury Court

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

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around the quality of care provided to people which resulted in a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. The provider had not ensured choice and independence was promoted and people received person-centred care. The provider had not ensured people were provided with sufficient meaningful activities, linked to hobbies, interests and culturally relevant.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People did not experience person-centred care which promoted their independence, choice, and control. People did not have access to personal belongings such as clothes and bedding due to the laundry issue. There was minimal signage to assist people to navigate around the home. Some bedroom doors did not have people's names on them, and bathroom and toilet doors signs were not dementia friendly. There was a lack of pictures and stimulus available throughout the service. For example, the lounge area was quite sparse, and the dining room was locked between meals. Relatives told us people were not always provided with a drink in the afternoon. It was dependent on the staff on duty. We found people did not always have access to adequate hydration. People had empty jugs of water in their bedrooms. There was a lack of person-centred activities to support people’s wellbeing. People who were able to use a call bell to call for assistance from staff did not always have access to one. One person told us they were able to tell staff when they needed to go to the toilet, but they did not have a call bell. They had to rely on staff coming to their room every three hours. Family and friends were welcomed to visit but sometimes it was challenging for them to get in and out of the service due to a lack of staff.

Staff told us people had to stay in their night clothes because there were no clean clothes available for them. Staff said they were having to bed bath people instead of showers because there were insufficient towels. We observed staff not respecting people's confidentiality. We heard staff discussing someone’s personal care over lunch. Staff did not always knock on people’s bedroom door or announce themselves prior to entering. Aprons were pulled over people’s heads without explanation. We observed very little communication between staff and people.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives because choice was not always actively promoted. The provider did not have sufficient oversight to ensure there was effective leadership which promoted a person-centred culture. The provider did not have effective systems and processes in place to ensure all staff had a good understanding of person-centred care, promoting people’s independence and control. The provider had not ensured the service provided sufficient meaningful activities linked to people’s hobbies, interests and culturally relevant.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.