• Care Home
  • Care home

Darley Hall Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Park Lane, Two Dales, Matlock, Derbyshire, DE4 2FB (01629) 735770

Provided and run by:
Ivonbrook Properties

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

Darley Hall Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people. At the time of the visit, 18 people were living at the service. The service is based over 3 floors, has large open plan communal areas and has a lift to access all floors.

Who the service is for

The service supports older people, including people living with dementia and people with physical health needs.

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment from 17 June 2026 to 23 June 2026. This service was previously rated good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

The provider had instilled a learning culture within the home and encouraged feedback from people, their relatives, and staff. For example, the electronic signing in system had a feedback prompt when people signed out as they left and the provider used any feedback for a 'you said, we did' system of making improvements. One staff member told us, "If we have a problem, the managers sort it out, they take time to listen."

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. Staff understood and managed risk while supporting people to take part in activities. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. The environment was clean, and well maintained inside and outside the home, with appropriate safety checks completed. Medicines were managed safely across the home, with good systems in place, clinical oversight and effective involvement from GPs and other health professionals. Where we found issues relating to the environment and minor issues with the kitchen and labelling of body creams and eye drops, the provider was receptive to our feedback and ensured our concerns were actioned swiftly.

Care plans were in place, were person centred and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. Care was delivered by consistent staff who knew people well. This also supported staff to recognise changes in people’s needs and respond effectively. Daily notes were detailed and clear. For example, it was recorded when someone did not want to do an activity provided in the home and what activity they chose to do instead.

Staff were observed delivering patient and supportive care, assisting people at their own pace with drinks and personal needs. Staff respected people's dignity and developed warm, trusting relationships. Caring interactions and respectful communication were central to the culture. One staff member told us, "I love talking to the residents". People were encouraged to lead their lives in their chosen way and took control of decisions about their care. Care plans reflected people’s preferences, and people were supported to maintain these, with one person commenting, “I’m drinking chardonnay, it's very nice!” Independence was encouraged and supported. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. A visiting professional said, “I can’t fault them… if anyone wants anything, they are there, they show compassion.”

Care records captured life histories, religions, and any care preferences, which helped staff tailor routines, activities, and meals. The registered manager told us how they supported people to have personalised rooms and items, "You will see ornaments, picture frames, some residents want their own bedding." People were encouraged and supported to express their views and be actively involved in their care. People’s preferred communication styles were known and respected. The service demonstrated good efforts to keep people informed and engaged. This included a regularly produced newsletter, informative posters, and personalised books created with people. These initiatives supported meaningful engagement and communication. Consent was recorded in daily notes which staff checked before providing personal care. The provider described a situation where a person was not in the home, and only wanted their room cleaned whilst they were there, which they respected.

Managers were committed to providing a non-discriminatory environment for people using the service and staff. The service actively promoted a culture of inclusion and respect throughout the year, including the ‘love is love’ initiative celebrating diversity and inclusion. Staff reinforced this through badges and themed activities, with a manager stating, “We celebrate that we are all one and should be kind to one another.” This supported people with protected characteristics to feel accepted, respected, and included, enhancing their sense of belonging and emotional wellbeing.

The provider had a good learning culture. People, their relatives and staff and could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People and relatives described staff as kind, supportive and approachable. One relative said, “The home manager is very warm and welcoming.” People were protected and kept safe. The provider’s governance processes were effective at identifying areas to improve. Regular audits were completed to monitor quality and safety. The provider told us they linked in with some local care homes to share best practice.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control, and freedom over their lives.

30 December 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Darley Hall Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 16 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 22 people. The home is in a rural area and bedrooms are spread over the two upper floors with communal facilities on the ground floor. Several lifts are available to access the upper floors of the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe from avoidable harm and abuse. There were a suitable number of staff available to meet people’s needs who were suitably trained. Checks were completed to ensure staff were suitable for their roles prior to working at the service. People felt safe and secure within their environment and with the staff team supporting them. The service was clean and tidy.

People’s care was based on a holistic assessment of their needs and preferences. People were supported to access health care services to maintain their wellbeing. People’s dietary needs were met and people were given a wide variety of options at mealtimes. People enjoyed the food and drink and staff were available to support them with their meals. People were supported to make decisions and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

People’s care plans were individual to them and contained detailed histories and information on how they wished to be supported. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

Staff knew people well and everyone felt like they were family. People were encouraged to maintain their own schedules and to pursue activities and interests individual to them. The staff supported people to remain as independent as possible.

Leadership within the service has stabilised following changes to the management team and the communication and operations had greatly improved. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care delivered. There was a procedure in place to address complaints or concerns. A monthly newsletter was used to communicate information important to people and their relatives. Staff felt supported and could rely on managers to assist them where required.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 26 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

8 February 2017

During a routine inspection

Darley Hall Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people. This included people living with dementia. At our inspection visit, 13 people were receiving care.

The inspection visit took place on 8 February 2017 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 3 September 2015 and was rated ‘Good’ overall. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ in four questions and ‘Requires Improvement’ in well-led.

There was no registered manager in post. The acting manager had been in post since August 2016 and they told us they would be applying to become the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood what constitutes abuse and how to report it, should they have any concerns. The provider had a safe recruitment process, which ensured new staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Pre-employment checks had been carried out. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure people received their medicines in a safe manner. Risks to people were identified and assessed and included in care plans. Procedures were in place for circumstances such as emergencies and untoward incidents.

The key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with dignity and respect; staff were kind and caring. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. People were supported to maintain good health and had access healthcare professionals when needed.

People told us there was plenty of choice around meals and personal preferences. Special diets, were catered for; drinks were freely available as well as being offered periodically throughout the day.

Care plans were reflective of people and their individual needs; people had been asked to contribute to their care plans. People and relatives felt there were enough activities to keep people occupied; staff supported people to take part in activities.

People and relatives were involved in the service and their views had been sought. Auditing procedures were in place to assess, monitor and evaluate the quality of the service being provided. People and relatives felt able to approach the staff or the acting manager and felt listened to.

3 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place 3 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Darley Hall Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people. This included people living with dementia. At our visit, 20 people were receiving care.

At our last inspection on 14 January 2014, we found that the provider’s arrangements for the management of medicines were not safe. We also found the provider did not ensure suitable arrangements were in place for obtaining, and acting in accordance with the consent of people, in relation to the care and treatment provided. These were breaches of Regulations 13 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. At this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

There was no registered manager as they had recently left and a new manager had been appointed and intended to register with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. Staff received training in relation to safe handling of medicines and to ensure staff practices remained safe.

Staff had received training to carry out their role. The manager understood their role in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We saw people being supported and assisted by staff who clearly knew people well and staff were knowledgeable about people and their needs. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they had completed training needed for their roles.

People were treated with dignity, respect and compassion. People told us they felt safe. There were policies and procedures in place to maintain people’s safety.

People were supported and assisted by staff who had been recruited through a safe and thorough process. Pre-employment checks had been carried out and included written references and evidence of identity. Checks were also carried out to ensure new staff were suitable to work in the care sector.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals when needed.

Procedures were in place with regards to emergencies and untoward incidents, such as falls.

Drinks were freely available as well as being offered periodically throughout the day. People were provided with a healthy, nutritional and varied menu.

Systems and auditing procedures were in place to assess, monitor and evaluate the quality of services.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. Activities were under review and being developed.

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming. Darley Hall Care Home supported older people who may have a dementia related condition. There were 19 people in residence when we undertook our inspection. We spoke with seven people living in the home, one visitor, four staff on duty, two visiting professionals and the registered manager.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and the staff were responsive to their needs. One person told us, “They are lovely, nothing is too much trouble. I’m being well looked after and if I need help they are here for you.”

Where people did not have capacity, a suitable assessment had not been carried out. The provider could not demonstrate decisions had been made in people’s best interest.

People using the service had care records which recorded how they wanted to be supported. The information we read in the care records matched the care, support and treatment we saw being delivered to people.

People told us they could make choices about their food and drink. We saw people were provided with a choice of food and refreshments. Snacks and drinks were available throughout the day.

We checked to ensure medication was stored and administered in a safe way. We found medication auditing required some improvement.

We checked records were suitably managed and stored safely. We saw that systems were put in place to manage record keeping and confidentiality.

21 February 2013

During a routine inspection

There were twenty people living at the home at the time of our inspection. During our visit we spoke with four of them.

One married couple told us '' We are happy here, they look after us well and the food is okay. ''Another person told us ''You would never get better care, all the nurses are perfect. The manager is great. I am happy with my care.'' A fourth person told us ''Living here is next door to nothing. There are no trips or outings. The food is ordinary, nothing special.''

We also spoke to the relatives of two people who had just come to live at the home. They told us '' We chose this home specially. We visited other homes in the area and we felt that this was the best place. The staff are friendly and welcoming.''