Archived: Norton Lodge

Updated 20 April 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 22nd and 29th October 2014 and was unannounced. The inspection team was made up of 2 adult social care inspectors.

Before the inspection the provider sent us a provider information return [PIR] which we reviewed in order to prepare for the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We contacted the local authority commissioning team and they provided us with information about their contact with the home. They told us they had no current concerns about the home.

The registered manager was on holiday on the first day of our visit so the inspection was undertaken with the senior carer/administrator and on the second day with the registered manager.

During the course of our inspection we spoke with 15 people who used the service and three of their relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, two senior carers, the administrator, the maintenance person, the cook, the activities co-ordinator and a total of eight other staff members.

We looked at all areas of the home including people’s bedrooms with their permission. We looked at care records and associated risk assessments for four people living in the home and used them to track the way these plans were put into practice. We looked at other documents including policies and procedures and audit materials.

We observed medication being administered and inspected five medicine administration records (MAR). We observed a lunchtime period in the dining room and observed people being helped with their meals. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) because there were people living at the home who were living with a dementia. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 20 April 2015

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 and 29 October 2014. The last inspection of Norton Lodge Care Home took place on the 22 November 2013 when it was found to be meeting all the regulatory requirements.

Norton Lodge Care Home is required to have a registered manager A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The current registered manager has been responsible for managing the home for the past three years.

Norton Lodge is a privately owned care home set in large grounds in the Norton Village area of Runcorn. A bus route and train station is nearby and Halton Lea shopping centre and Runcorn old town are within easy travelling distance. The home provides personal care for people who experience mental health issues, alcohol related problems, learning disability or dementia. The accommodation is provided over two floors and is registered to take up to 32 people. At the time of our visit there were 27 people living in the home.

The registered manager Was on holiday on the first day of our visit so the inspection was undertaken with the senior carer/administrator. However on the second day the manager was available to facilitate the inspection.

The inspection took place over two days and during our visit we spent time in all areas of the home, including the lounge and the dining areas. This enabled us to observe how people’s care and support was provided. The relationships we saw were warm and dignified with staff and people who used the service treating each other with mutual respect. People told us that they were treated well by people who showed that they really cared.

We found the service did not fully meet the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Some people at the service were not able to tell us if their freedoms were restricted but we could see that they did not have clearly recorded best interest decisions in their care files. However the registered manager advised that she had been in touch with a local authority social worker who had arranged to visit the home and arrange best interest meetings to ensure all the people who lived in the home were not deprived of their liberty. This action was confirmed by the local authority who advised that they had arranged an initial visit to the service to commence their interventions.

Arrangements were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. The people living in the home told us that they felt safe and supported at Norton Lodge. Comments included; “The staff make sure we are safe and they make sure we are supported to do what we want without risk of harm”.

The care files we looked at contained the relevant information regarding background history of the people who lived in the home. People told us that this information was recorded to enable the staff to understand people’s backgrounds and needs and to know what people liked or disliked and of how they wished to live their life.

Care records were kept under review to enable changing needs to be identified and reviewed. People we spoke with told us that they felt well cared for and they had no concerns about staff skills and knowledge. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff had received an induction when they began working for the service and were able to access training to build on their knowledge and skills.

Discussions with staff members identified that they felt happy and supported and worked well as a team. They told us that the manager was most supportive and she led by example. Comments included; “I have joined a good staff team. Everyone is supportive; we are encouraged to gain as many qualifications as we can. We get quality supervision and always work together as a team.”

We observed that staff responded to people’s care needs promptly and people told us that care was provided as and when required.

The service had a robust quality assurance system in place which used various checks and audit tools to monitor and review the practices within the home.