Norwood House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 6 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 21 May and 2 June 2026.Norwood House is a residential care service providing accommodation and personal care for up to 20 people. At the time of the assessment 12 people were using the service. Some people were living with dementia, and others had mental health needs and learning disabilities.

We assessed the service against Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance. However, the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture were not consistently embedded, particularly in relation to person-centred care planning, opportunities for people to achieve meaningful outcomes, and consistent governance oversight.

We found breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, and governance. These included continued breaches where improvements had not been sustained.

The provider acted during the inspection to address concerns. This included engaging a maintenance worker to complete repairs, replacing worn furnishings, improving cleaning practices, updating medicines systems, and reviewing aspects of care planning. Immediate risks were addressed, including relocation of a resident from a room affected by odour and improvements to medicines recording and protocols.We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People experienced kind and supportive care in their day-to-day interactions with staff and staff understood their needs, promoting independence and access to healthcare. The provider had taken positive steps to support staff and people, including introducing a training system accessible in multiple languages and using translation tools to support communication and understanding. Adaptations were made to promote independence, such as accessible information formats and adapted equipment for eating. People told us they felt safe.

However, the quality and consistency of care did not always meet expected standards. Care planning was not always complete or consistently updated, including gaps in consent, future planning and individual goals. Improvements had been made since the previous inspection but had not always been sustained or embedded.

The environment was not always well maintained, with ongoing issues including maintenance concerns, cleanliness and a persistent unpleasant odour in a bedroom.Governance systems were not consistently effective in identifying, assessing and improving the quality and safety of the service. Management audits had not always identified or acted on risks, and improvements were often reactive rather than proactive.