Normanshire-Supported Living Services received an overall Good rating following a focused inspection of safe, responsive, and well-led key questions, with no evidence of harm found despite concerns that prompted the inspection. The service demonstrated strong person-centred practice, safe medicines management, effective governance, and a positive open culture, with the responsive rating improving from Requires Improvement to Good since the previous inspection.
Strengths
· Person-centred care plans with detailed individual preferences, communication passports, and regular 6-monthly reviews involving relatives and advocates
· Medicines managed safely with no gaps in administration records and accurate stock counts
· Robust safeguarding awareness among staff with clear escalation pathways
· Effective use of assistive technology and easy-read formats to meet communication needs
· Strong governance including monthly audits, unannounced spot checks, and quality assurance systems
Normanshire-Supported Living Services improved from a previous inadequate rating to Good overall, with safe, effective, caring and well-led all rated Good. Responsive deteriorated to Requires Improvement due to gaps in person-centred care, staff understanding of autism/learning disabilities, choice of provider awareness, and access to independent advocacy.
Concerns (8)
moderatePerson-centred care: “Staff did not always know how to provide person-centred care to people who had behaviours that could challenge themselves or others.”
moderatePerson-centred care: “people and their relatives were not aware they could choose their care provider in line with the guidance.”
moderateStaff training: “the provider had not ensured all staff had received training about supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability.”
moderateStaff competency: “A staff member described people as "Having behaviours" rather than being conversant about autism and learning disabilities and we observed them not taking someone's sensory needs into account during a meal.”
moderateCare planning: “People had proactive plans in place to reduce the need for restrictive practices but these were not always followed.”
moderateOther: “Nobody at the service had an advocate and we were not assured that people had easy access to independent, good quality advocacy”
minorCare planning: “Records we reviewed demonstrated the provider had not always explored all reasonable options to support people to meet their goals such as making their own hot drinks.”
minorCommunication with families: “I would like more interaction with staff. I would like them to come and say hello. Some staff do it not all.”
Strengths
· People were protected from abuse and poor care; safeguarding processes were understood by staff.
· Sufficient staffing levels with safe recruitment checks including DBS.
· Medicines were administered safely, regularly reviewed, and STOMP principles were implemented.
· Staff received regular supervision and appraisal, and an induction programme was in place.
· People had good access to healthcare services and were referred to specialists where appropriate.
Quality-Statement breakdown (17)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and management; Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietGood
effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives, access healthcare services and supportGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the law