Derby House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, more training was made accessible for staff when people were admitted to the home with additional complex needs, to ensure care was delivered safely.

The service always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Derby House had particularly managed people’s transitions well and had adapted the home to include ‘step down’ which was a fully equipped flat for people to trial before being admitted to the home. This to was to ensure their rehabilitation was not impacted.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. For example, staff knew the course of action to take when someone was being harmed, and there was accessible information around the home for people. There was DoLs in place where needed to support people with decision making.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, clear and concise risk assessments were completed with people and communicated with staff before they supported that person. For example, 1 person required staff to communicate with them using body language and understand if the person required their own personal space.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. One person said, “I feel safe here”. There was well documented evidence in the maintenance records all checks had taken place on the environment and any issues had been flagged, reported and fixed. People’s bedrooms and corridors were wide enough to ensure adapted wheelchairs could fit.

The service made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. For example, staff were given development opportunities within the company, such as National Vocational Qualifications [NVQs,] but some staff were even supported to return to nursing to regain their nursing PIN number. Staff not only attended supervision with the manager of the home, but were also supported through debrief and reflection sessions with the onsite psychologist. Staff fed back how ‘lucky’ they felt to work at the home, and it was always ‘overstaffed’ to ensure people had access to 1-1 support and rehabilitation.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The head of housekeeping had completed all infection control training and discussed how they set out their cleaning how often the home was deep cleaned.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. We spot checked the medicines for some people and saw any specialist techniques for administration had been recorded on their Medication Administration Record [MAR] after consultation with the GP’s and pharmacists who supported the home.