Archived: Derby House

Derby House is a care home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to three people with mental health needs. At the time of this inspection there were two people using the service. One support staff is provided between the hours of 9am to 3pm each day. A team of two staff work at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us they were consistently treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Without exception, people told us they felt safe and well supported. One person said, “When I look back I am overwhelmed with the help they [staff] have given me.” One person’s relatives praised the standards of support provided by staff and they told us their family member was healthier and happier since moving into Derby House;

• People received personalised support from staff who knew them well. Staff had built positive relationships with people living in the service. Staff supported people to retain their independence and to remain involved in planning and reviewing their care to ensure it was provided in accordance with their own preferences;

• Staff worked closely with a range of community health professionals to promote good outcomes for people;

• The service was consistently well-led. People felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager and were confident they would be addressed. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager;

• The registered manager and staff completed a range of quality checks and audits of the service to make sure the care and support provided was of high quality. This supported the continuous improvement of the service;

• The service met the characteristics of good in all key questions, however, we have made a recommendation about training records;

• More information is in the full report.

There have not been any published ratings inspections against this location because the service was dormant. The last inspection report (published 24/07/2014) did not identify any breaches in the regulations checked at that time.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection as the service began supporting people again in May 2018. The service is rated good.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor this service. We plan to compete a further inspection in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated good.

At the time of this inspection two people were living at Derby House. We spoke with both people to obtain their views of the care and support provided. In addition, we spoke with an assistant manager and a support worker about their roles and responsibilities.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with said they felt 'very safe' living at Derby House. They said, 'I feel very safe here, I get on with all the staff and I can speak to the managers if I am worried.'

People told us their privacy and dignity was respected. They said, 'staff are lovely, they are friendly and nice with me.'

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, relevant policies and procedures were in place. Appropriate staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one to the appropriate authority if needed.

We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their support plans.

People had monthly support review meetings with staff. People told us, 'I see my care plan and notes, staff show me them a lot.'

Staff were provided with training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs.

Staff were provided with formal individual supervision and appraisals to ensure they were adequately supported and their performance was appraised. Managers' were accessible to staff for advice and support.

People told us they were happy with the care and support staff provided and their needs were met. It was clear from our observations that staff had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and they knew how to meet them and avoid unnecessary risks.

Other professionals and individuals were involved in regular meetings and reviews with each individual to ensure their care and support was still appropriate.

Is the service caring?

During our inspection we saw people were very comfortable in the presence of staff and we saw people willingly and unprompted provide staff with a 'hug' before they went out for the day. We observed staff giving support to people throughout the inspection and they treated people in a friendly and supportive way.

People living at the home all confirmed that they were happy with the care and support provided. They said, 'staff are lovely', 'the staff are comics as well, we enjoy a laugh together' and 'I like it here, the staff cheer me up.'

People's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People said they were offered choice in how they spent their day.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service on a daily basis. People were assisted to access the community, appointments at local health services and took part in day trips and holidays.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and said they would tell the manager. They commented, "I ring the manger every night we talk about things, they ask if I'm alright, I'm happy though.'

Is the service well-led?

The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. People who used the service were asked for their views about their care and support and these were acted on. We saw evidence that the provider carried out annual satisfaction surveys. Feedback was analysed and the provider, took appropriate action. We saw that the results of the surveys were very positive.

People said they had regular 'house meetings' where any issues or concerns and plans for the running of the home were discussed and acted upon.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Discussions on best practice, improved ways of working and incidents reviews were common throughout one to one supervisions with a manager, formal team meetings and informal discussions.

Records checked showed that before people received any care, support or treatment they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

We found that people's needs were identified in care plans. Records showed that people had been involved in the care planning process. People told us that they had regular access to healthcare professionals.

We saw that medication was recorded at the time it was administered. Medication records checked were up to date and regular audits of medication systems were undertaken.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed.

We found that a complaints policy and procedure was in place. People had been provided with information on how to make a complaint. All of the people we spoke with said they had no complaints or concerns about the home.