Norbury Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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. The provider had not ensured people’s needs were met and the outcomes achieved to promote people’s independence, choice and control. Care records reviewed showed little involvement from people and their relatives in their care planning. Relatives told us they had not been asked for feedback about the service and did not know they could attend the resident’s meetings. The provider had not ensured there were robust systems in place to ensure people and their relatives views were actively sought so they could be used to drive improvements at the service.

This service scored 61 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives told us their views were not actively sought. They had not been given a survey or been invited to a residents or relative’s meeting. People with an impairment or sensory loss were not always appropriately supported. For example, one person had been assessed as needing to wear their glasses. This information had not been shared with the person’s family, and the person never wore their glasses. One relative shared concerns on how some staff supported their family member. They said, “Some of them [staff] don’t know how to put her hearing aid in. They are often not fitted properly.”

Staff told us there was not enough staff to make sure people received care that was consistently safe, good quality care that met people’s needs. Staff told us they did not feel supported and were not encouraged to share their views on how the service could improve. People were often referred to by room number by staff. For example, the agency nurse was told about people's needs by room number and not by name. Nutritional information on the kitchen notice board referred to some people by their room numbers as opposed to their name.

The provider had not ensured people did not experience inequalities and poor outcomes. An assessment of people’s needs was completed, and the expected outcomes were identified. However, the provider had not ensured those needs were met and the outcomes achieved to promote people’s independence, choice, and control. The provider had not ensured relative’s views were actively sought to improve the quality of care provided. Care records reviewed showed little involvement from people and their relatives in their care planning.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.