CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Norwood Grange Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, safeguarding procedures were understood, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place. Inspectors recommended exploring people's and staff's experiences of staffing levels and improving the retention of staff photographic identity checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed and recorded. Staff were trained, people were supported to make choices, and health professionals were involved when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw respectful and reassuring interactions. People and relatives spoke positively about staff, and staff supported people's dignity, privacy, consent and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff knew people's preferences. People could raise concerns, but activities had reduced after the activity coordinator left and people said there was not as much to do.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality checks identified areas for improvement and action was taken. Staff felt listened to and supported, and feedback from people and relatives was positive.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Norwood Grange Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with minor improvements needed in staff identity checks and activities.
Inspectors visited without warning on 20 and 21 July 2022. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported with personalised care. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, the home was clean and people could access health professionals.
There were a few areas to improve. The provider was asked to improve how staff photographic identity checks were retained. Two people felt staff could sometimes respond more quickly, and people said there was less to do after the activity coordinator left.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and risks were assessed and managed.
“People told us they felt safe living at this home, and their relatives agreed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people with kindness, reassurance and respect. People were involved in decisions and their dignity was promoted.
“We observed some positive interactions between people and staff. Staff responded to people respectfully at all times, answering their questions, providing reassurance and doing so with a smile.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff knew people well and supported them in line with their individual needs.
“The plans were person-centred and written with the involvement of the person.” from the report
Good health and medicine support
Medicines were administered by trained staff and records were completed. People had access to the GP and other health professionals.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were completed as required and people had their prescribed medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Active management oversight
The home used regular checks, audits, meetings and feedback to identify and address improvements.
“A range of quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and improve the service.” from the report
Staff identity checks
minorInspectors recommended improvements to retaining photographic identity checks for staff. The manager said immediate action would be taken.
“We recommend the provider makes some improvements to the retention of staff photographic Identity checks.” from the report
Response times
minorMost people thought staffing levels were sufficient, but two people said staff could sometimes come more quickly. Inspectors recommended that the provider explore this further.
“Two people did say, "I wish staff would come a bit quicker" but they didn't say staff numbers had a direct effect on the care or support they received.” from the report
Activities
minorPeople said they missed the activity coordinator after that person left and felt there was less to do. The home was trying to recruit another coordinator.
“People told us the activity coordinator had recently left the service and they 'missed her' as they felt there wasn't as much to do.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure staff photographic identity checks are retained properly?
- 02How have you explored concerns about staff response times, and what have you changed as a result?
- 03Who currently organises activities, and what regular activities are available now?
- 04How do you make sure each person's care plan stays up to date and reflects their choices?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be given and recorded correctly?
This was a planned inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe, and it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 2022 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 November 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control measures because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visitors and admissions, and following shielding and social distancing rules.
They also found regular cleaning of high-contact areas, staff training on infection control, wellbeing checks for people isolating in their rooms, and efforts to keep families in contact.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall rating or a rating for most of the five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including a current policy and regular cleaning of high-contact areas.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had been trained to keep people safe from infection and to use protective equipment correctly. Inspectors found this training was well established in practice.
“Through observation and discussions with staff, it was clear training was well embedded.” from the report
Support during isolation
While people were isolating in their rooms, staff carried out regular wellbeing checks and offered opportunities for people to talk about how they were feeling.
“As many people were isolating in their rooms at the time of our visit, staff carried out regular wellbeing checks on people” from the report
Family contact
The home kept people and families updated about national guidance and changes at the home. It had also started using technology to help people stay in touch.
“The service had begun utilising technology to encourage people to stay in contact with family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection outbreaks identified and managed now?
- 02How often are high-contact areas such as door handles and light switches cleaned?
- 03How will you support my relative if they need to isolate in their room?
- 04How will my relative keep in contact with family if visits are restricted?
- 05How often are staff and residents tested when there is an infection risk?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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.
Every inspection of Norwood Grange Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 October 2019.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.