CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Norton House Trading as Poole Beresford Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risk assessments were up to date and gave staff information about how to keep people safe. Medicines were managed and audited safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home assessed and regularly reviewed people's needs. Consent and best-interest records had improved, and people received support with nutrition, health care and staff training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not assessed during this focused inspection, so no current rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Responsive was not assessed during this focused inspection, so no current rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management structure and quality checks had improved. Audits covered areas such as care plans, medicines, infection control, risk assessments and the environment.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found that earlier problems with consent, risk records and oversight had been addressed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection in May 2019, followed by a focused inspection in July and August 2020. The later inspection checked whether the home had acted on its improvement plan. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe, Effective and Well-led.
The home had improved its risk assessments, medicines systems and quality checks. Care records were more complete and reflected people's current needs. Inspectors also found suitable infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
People were supported with food, drink, health care and staff training. The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous comprehensive inspection.
Up-to-date risk plans
Care records gave staff clear information about people's risks, including what support they needed in an emergency. COVID-19 risks had also been assessed.
“Care plans contained up to date assessments of risk associated with peoples' care and support needs.” from the report
Safer medicines systems
The home had addressed earlier medicines recording problems. Regular audits were being used to identify and deal with issues.
“Systems for managing medicines were audited and any identified issues addressed.” from the report
Consent and best-interest decisions
The home had improved its records about people's capacity and decisions made on their behalf. It was no longer in breach of the consent regulation.
“When people lacked capacity to make certain decisions, documentation to show how decisions had been made for them in their best interests was in place” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and managers had introduced wider checks across the home. Accidents, incidents and safeguarding matters were analysed so lessons could be learned.
“Comprehensive audits had been completed in areas including health and safety, infection control, care plans, risk assessments, medication and environment.” from the report
Infection control
The home had processes for hand hygiene, protective equipment, testing and isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment appropriately.
“Hand sanitiser was available around the home and we saw staff used PPE appropriately.” from the report
Meetings were suspended
minorMeetings for people using the home had been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. One person said staff still asked their opinion about the service.
“Meetings had been suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic but one person we spoke with said staff asked their opinion about the service they received.” from the report
Some training updates were delayed
minorThe manager said some staff training updates had been postponed because of COVID-19 restrictions. The report still found that staff had the training and support needed at the time.
“The registered manager explained how some training updates had needed to be postponed due to constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
- 01How are you currently checking that risk assessments remain accurate and reflect changes in each person's needs?
- 02How do you audit medicines records and storage, and what action do you take when an issue is found?
- 03How are capacity assessments, consent records and best-interest decisions kept up to date?
- 04How do you involve residents and relatives in decisions about the home now that meetings were suspended during the pandemic?
- 05Were the delayed staff training updates completed, and how do you check staff competence?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, with particular checks on Regulations 11 and 17; the report says ratings for areas not inspected were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 2020 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, June 2019
Norton House was rated Requires Improvement, with improvements from Inadequate and leaving Special Measures, but weaknesses remained in consent, records and management checks.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 8 May 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training, recruitment and quality checks.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate overall and placed in Special Measures. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, generally safe medicines management, good cleanliness, kind care and suitable support with food and healthcare.
Further work was needed. Records about people's risks, capacity and best-interest decisions were not always complete or clear. Training records, care plan reviews and management checks also needed improvement. The home breached Regulations 11 and 17.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe. Inspectors also found enough staff and saw people received help without being kept waiting.
“People told us they felt safe living at Norton House.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Staff we spoke with knew people's characters as well as their care needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had no concerns about the food. They received support to maintain their nutrition and could see health professionals when needed.
“People told us they had no concerns about the food served at the home” from the report
Complaints were handled
People and relatives felt able to raise concerns with the registered manager. Records showed complaints were recorded and responses were kept.
“Written records of complaints and responses were kept, with an overview to assist the registered manager to identify any emerging themes or trends.” from the report
End of life planning
End of life plans recorded people's wishes, worries, faith and preferred place of care.
“People's end of life care needs and preferences, including those relating to their faith, were well documented.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousThere were errors in medicines stock records and gaps in administration records. Some temperature records showed medicines had been stored above a safe temperature, and one person had sometimes been unable to get night-time pain relief.
“Our checks of stock balances showed there were some errors in recording information relating to medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity and consent
seriousRecords did not always clearly show whether people could make particular decisions or how best-interest decisions had been reached. This led to a breach of the consent regulation.
“When people lacked capacity to make certain decisions, documentation to show how decisions had been made for them in their best interests was not robust” from the report
Care plans were not always current
needs fixingSome risk assessments contained information that needed review or contradicted the care plan. Inspectors also found limited evidence that people and relatives were involved in writing and reviewing care plans.
“Some risk assessments contained information which needed review, or contradictory information.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingQuality monitoring had improved, but management oversight had not identified problems with care plans and capacity records. Further improvement was needed to make governance checks effective.
“there was a lack of evidence of the registered manager's oversight of the processes and some issues which we found had not been identified” from the report
Training records
needs fixingA training programme was in place, but records were incomplete and showed some staff had not received regular training according to the home's policies.
“the records relating to these were incomplete and showed some staff had not received regular training in line with the provider's policies.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that each person's mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are complete and legally sound?
- 02What checks are in place to make sure medicines records, stock counts and storage temperatures are accurate?
- 03How are residents and relatives involved in writing and reviewing care plans?
- 04How do you make sure risk assessments and care plans do not contradict each other and reflect current needs?
- 05What action has been taken to improve training records and management oversight since the inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC key questions, following the previous Inadequate rating and Special Measures status. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 Trading as Poole Beresford Ltd
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Norton House Trading as Poole Beresford Ltd →
- June 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Norton House Trading as Poole Beresford Ltd →
- November 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2011.
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 Calderdale
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 £1,260 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.