Derby

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care that was person‑centred and reflective of their individual routines, preferences, communication needs and life histories. Care plans were detailed and written in accessible, first‑person style, describing what mattered to individuals and how best to support them. Staff understood people’s emotional needs, including the importance of reassurance, routine and predictability. Staff shared examples of adapting support sensitively during times of bereavement or distress, showing genuine empathy and understanding.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care plans showed close working relationships with community nurses, day services, advocates, mental health teams and safeguarding professionals. Staff understood escalation procedures, particularly where people had significant health risks such as diabetes, fluctuating mental health or reduced mobility. People and relatives reported care was reliable overall. One relative told us, “They are really good, the staff have gone above and beyond.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were given information in ways they could understand. Care plans described how staff adapted communication, for example using simple language, checking understanding or breaking information into smaller steps.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were listened to and involved in decisions about their care. Care plans reflected people’s wishes, preferences and routines, and staff described examples of encouraging people to express choices or concerns. Relatives consistently told us they felt heard, and would contact the office if they had any concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had fair and equal access to the support they needed. Staff understood individuals’ cultural, communication and health‑related needs and tailored support accordingly. Examples included supporting people who spoke English as a second language, adapting communication styles, and providing learning opportunities through community‑based activities. Staff also described the organisation as culturally inclusive, saying, “People from different cultures, backgrounds and religions work here and we respect each other’s values.” This contributed to an environment where people were treated equitably and access to support was not restricted due to personal characteristics or communication needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff took a personalised approach, ensuring people with complex histories, disabilities or trauma had the support they needed to participate in daily life. Care plans showed how staff recognised people’s strengths as well as their risks.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans recorded historic changes, emerging health concerns and patterns of refusal or deterioration, helping staff anticipate the support people might need. Staff understood how to escalate concerns and work with external agencies to ensure care adapted when people’s needs changed. Relatives told us they felt the service responded well as situations evolved. Staff shared examples of helping people develop new skills, regain independence or maintain stability during difficult periods. Although governance processes would benefit from more structured audits, people’s day‑to‑day planning was strong, proactive and reflective of their changing needs.