Derian House Children's Hospice

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Children and family’s were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. Every effort was made to take children and their family’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

4. The provider was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity. Relationships between people who used the service, those close to them and staff were strong, caring, respectful and supportive. 

People felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. Relationships were valued by the families who said that the staff allowed them to just be parents with continuous support whenever it was needed. 

Staff were discreet and responsive when caring for children, young people, and their families. Staff took time to interact with children, young people, and their families in a respectful and considerate way especially those with mental health illnesses and learning disabilities. 

We were told about the extraordinary care that staff provided to children and young people in the sunflower suite after death. Staff personalised the sunflower suites with things that was important to the child and family. For example, staff placed teddies around the sunflower suite and put children’s programmes on the TV. Families had use of a flat on site while their child was in the sunflower suite and staff supported the family to enable them to stay with their child.  

We were told by families and staff about how the care goes above and beyond to support the whole family and not just the child. For example, helping families to make family memories together with holidays, days out and special activities. Families told us about support they had received from staff for housing issues, welfare benefits, and accessing other types of support.  

We were told by stakeholders that the service exemplified kindness, empathy and compassion in action. Staff told us that they could raise concerns relating to the safety of children and young people. There was a culture of kindness and compassion within the service.  

We scored the service as3. The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff made sure children and young people living with learning disabilities and long-term conditions received the necessary care to meet all their needs. Staff, children, young people, and their families could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. Staff had access to communication aids to help children, young people and their families’ become partners in their care and treatment such as Makaton. The hospice was designed to meet the needs of children, young people, and their families. For the children the service had a light sensory room, a soft play area, hydrotherapy pool and a disability friendly outdoor play area with wheelchair accessible swings.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure children’s care, support and treatment met their needs, and the preferences of their parents and carers. 

Children brought their own toiletries, nappies, wipes, special toys, comforters and equipment with them, which parents described as promoting home from home.

The service provided free food and drink to children, young people and their families. Every day there was a choice of menu, and this would cater to special dietary needs and requirements.  

The premises and facilities were accessible for all. All entrances had ramp access, and all doors were wider width for wheelchair access.  

We scored the service as 3. The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. We were told about the bereavement support groups called Derian Dads, Derian Mums, Sibling Support and a group specifically for grandparents. 

The service collected feedback from young people which indicated that the service gave young people connections with their peers and independence.  

The service had spaces adaptable to any denomination to meet different faith needs. There was a selection of items that could be used for prayer and reflection. Religious festivals of different faiths were observed and acknowledging important times of the year in different cultures.  

Children, young people and their families were able to make decisions about their preferred place to die. Staff told us instances where they have met a variety of very individualised needs and requests relating to end of life care of children and young people. 

We scored the service as 3. The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients and their families were able to provide feedback about the service, and their treatment and staff supported them to do this. We observed a ‘you said, we did’ board at the nurses’ station, which displayed some actions already taken because of feedback provided. 

Respite care was offered to all families for 10 nights per year. 

The hospice environment had been designed to meet the play and developmental needs of children. This included indoor and outdoor resources to help children develop their motor skills, cognition, and social skills. Children and young people could access communal play areas for arts and crafts and a lounge area to play or story time. A large sensory room could also be converted to a soft play area and there was a range of musical instruments available for music therapy.  

The outside area was accessible and had been adapted to include a play area with soft play floor and trampoline mats. A woodland pod was available for use and gardens were well maintained and included a sensory garden and a seaside garden. We received positive feedback how the outside space had been adapted to meet the needs of families and was most welcoming all year around. 

We scored the service as 3. The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with told us that they felt proud working for the service and within their direct teams.  We received mixed feedback from staff about about how the organisation supported staff, and some staff reported that they felt there were limited opportunities for career development.

The staff told us of additional pressures created due to sick leave absences.

The service provided wellbeing support and access to counselling services for staff. Information about these staff services had been circulated to staff and the information was displayed on the corridor notice board in the main building.   

Staff had appraisals and the audit information that we were provided indicated that 96% of staff appraisals had been carried out.