Norbury Court

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

We last reviewed this key question in June 2022 where we rated it requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessments were completed prior to support starting. Care records were now more person centred and detailed but still needed improvement in some areas. For example, information around capacity was not always completed and information provided to staff about people’s communication needs was not always accurate. One relative told us, “It says [person] has no hearing problem [on the door] but [person] is non-compliant with their hearing aids. The staff need to understand [person] can’t hear.” Another relative commented that their relatives hearing aid was not working.

The provider was now planning and delivering people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. However, improvements were still needed with audits of care and treatment requiring consistent completion to allow increased oversight and for themes and trends to identified. Completion of training for staff and more frequent supervision was also required to ensure all staff had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives in this area. However, feedback from some relatives noted that they were starting to notice improvements including more involvement in their relatives’ care.

We saw evidence of involvement from other health care professionals. Feedback about partnership working we received from professionals was mainly positive. One professional commented, “I believe they do their best given the resources they have.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff were positive about recent changes and were now more confident in their knowledge of people they supported and in the support they provided. One staff member told us, “I know them [people]. I understand their needs.”

People and relatives were mainly positive about support received around healthcare. One relative commented, “If [person] falls, they let us know and let us know if medication changes. The doctor comes and they have spoken to paramedics when needed.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Although systems were in place these were not robust and had not always been completed consistently to allow clear service level oversight. This could result in themes and trends not being identified and missed opportunities to improve. Feedback was not consistently sought and some relatives commented on poor communication from senior managers. One relative commented, “They [provider] need a regular manager. It’s hard to find someone to talk to, it varies with staffing. There is poor communication. When you ask for things, they don’t get back to you.”

People were aware of their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, people’s care records did not always contain sufficient information about the type of decisions they were able to make and how best to support them to make these decisions including any support a person may need with communication. The provider agreed to action this.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before care was delivered. We observed staff offering people choices and checking consent before completing care tasks throughout our visit.