CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Norton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, but surface cleaning was not as frequent as best practice recommended.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed visiting and social distancing arrangements, and had an up-to-date infection control policy.
They found that frequently touched surfaces were cleaned regularly, but not as often as recommended by best practice guidance. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Support for new people
The home had a settling-in plan to help people get to know staff, discuss their needs and wishes, and reduce isolation.
“A settling in plan has been devised to help people who have recently moved into the service to get to know staff and discuss their needs and wishes, as well as to alleviate the risks of isolation.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
There were clear arrangements for visits, including advance booking and rapid testing before entry. People could also use video calls to keep in touch with family and friends.
“There were clear guidelines for visitors to follow when visiting people, including booking appointments in advance and having a rapid test for COVID-19 before entering the premises.” from the report
Cleaning frequency
minorFrequently touched surfaces were cleaned regularly, but not as often as best practice guidance recommended for this type of care setting.
“Although there was regular cleaning of surfaces which were touched regularly, this was not occurring as frequently as recommended by best practice guidelines for this type of care setting.” from the report
- 01How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned now, and has this changed since the inspection?
- 02How does the settling-in plan work for someone who moves into the home?
- 03What testing and protective equipment arrangements are currently used for staff, visitors and people living in the home?
- 04How can relatives arrange visits, and are rapid tests still required before entering?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Norton House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, but people's personal goals were not always monitored.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, managers and care workers. They reviewed care, medicine, staffing and safety records, and observed mealtimes and an activity.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, safe medicines practice and prompt action when people's health or safety needs changed.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, activities were available and complaints were dealt with appropriately. The home had good checks on quality and safety, but inspectors recommended a more systematic way to identify and monitor people's goals and priorities.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they had no safety concerns. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and managers acted promptly when concerns arose.
“People told us they liked living in the service and had no concerns about their safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time with people, used their chosen names and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw examples of good quality interaction throughout the day.” from the report
Good staffing and support
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received induction, training and regular supervision.
“There were enough staff to both meet people's needs and allow care workers to spend quality time with people.” from the report
Good management and improvement
Managers listened to people and staff, used audits and surveys, and made changes when issues were identified.
“There were good systems of audit to make sure that issues were addressed promptly.” from the report
Activities and personal care
People had access to varied activities, including individual activities, and care plans covered a wide range of personal needs.
“People had access to a varied and interesting activity programme and spent time with care workers on individual activities of their choice.” from the report
Personal goals were not always tracked
needs fixingThe provider did not always have a systematic way to record and monitor people's goals and priorities. This included goals such as doing exercises.
“The provider did not always systematically monitor people's goals and priorities for their care.” from the report
Limited opportunities for some activities
minorSome people felt they did not have enough opportunities to go outside. Inspectors also saw examples of people being unable to pursue particular interests.
“Some people felt they didn't have enough opportunities to go outside.” from the report
No specific flag for accessible information
minorPeople's communication needs were assessed, but there was no specific process to flag when information might need to be provided in another format.
“There was no specific process to flag up when people may need information provided to them in alternative formats.” from the report
- 01How will you record and review my relative's personal goals, such as exercise or other priorities?
- 02What opportunities will my relative have to go outside and pursue their own interests?
- 03How do you check that nutrition risk scores are calculated correctly and reviewed when needed?
- 04How will you make sure information is provided in a format my relative can understand if they have communication difficulties?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviews of their care and choices?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Norton House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Westminster
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,300 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.