Norwood House

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment, medicines management and governance. This included continued breaches where improvements identified at the previous inspection had not been fully embedded.

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question 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.

The provider was in continued breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service as improvements had not been consistently sustained since the previous inspection.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignityand respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessmentthe rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service. This breach reflects ongoing shortfalls in care planning and oversight.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessmentthe rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service. This was a continued breach, as systems had not consistently ensured sustainable improvements following the previous inspection.