We carried out a review of the data available to us about Derwent View on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Derwent View, you can give feedback on this service.
Derwent View provides residential care for up to 19 people diagnosed with learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorders. People are accommodated in three bungalows, one of which has a self-contained one-bedroomed flat attached. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people using the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Derwent View’s positive culture enabled people to achieve their potential and integrate into the community. A relative said, “I can’t believe what they have achieved with [person], things I never thought possible.” A social care professional said the change in a person they placed at the home ‘was just remarkable’. Staff valued people and accepted and celebrated their life choices.
Staff were exceptionally caring and supportive. A relative said, “The place is full of love and affection. [Person] has the life we’ve always wanted for them.” People had excellent trusting relationships with the staff. A relative said, “The staff are there to keep people happy. They are always calm and always in good spirits. It’s a lovely place to visit.”
The registered manager provided outstanding leadership and support to staff, people and relatives. They ran the home efficiently, meeting all their regulatory responsibilities. A relative said, "If I could clone the home I would, it’s an amazing place. Nothing’s too much trouble for the [registered] manager and if something needs doing it’s done straight away.”
People were safe at the home and the staff knew how to protect them from harm. A relative said, “I can sleep at night knowing [person] is in the safest place possible.” The home was well-staffed, and people had one-to-one and two-to-one staffing when they needed it. People had their medicines when they needed them. The home was purpose built, spacious and accessible, and clean and tidy throughout.
People were assessed before coming to the home to ensure it was suitable for them. The staff team was established, experienced, and well-trained. People had a varied diet of their choosing. Staff ensured people’s healthcare needs were met.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People had personalised care plans which were continually reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. People’s took part in a wide range of individual and group activities both in the home and in the wider community. A relative said, “[Person] does all the things they could never do at home. [Person] is so active.”
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 (based on an inspection on 08 November 2016).
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.
Derwent View provides residential care for up to 19 people with Learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. People lived in small groups according to their needs. There were three bungalows comprising of six bedded residential units. The bungalows were named Meden, Trent and Dove. There was also a ground floor flat which accommodated one person. The service was providing support for 19 people at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 with the care provided by staff. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm. Recruitment procedures ensured suitable staff were employed to work with people who used the service. Staff told us they had received training and an induction that had helped them to understand and support people.
Risk assessments and care plans had been developed where possible with the involvement of people and their representatives. Staff had the relevant information on how to minimise identified risks to ensure people were supported in a safe way. People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people’s medicines.
The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Some people were subject to restrictions and the provider had identified where their support needed to be reviewed. This provided assurance the principles of the MCA 2005 were followed.
People received appropriate support to manage their dietary needs. This was done in a way that met with their needs and choices. People were referred to health professionals when required to maintain their health and wellbeing.
Staff supported people in a caring way and respected their privacy and supported them to maintain their dignity. The delivery of care was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and preferences.
We saw staff positively engaging with people who used the service. People were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them. People were able to access local community facilities such as visiting the cinema and supported by staff to pursue their individual hobbies and interests.
The provider’s complaints policy and procedure were accessible to people who used the service and their representatives.
There were processes in place for people and their relatives to express their views and opinions about the service provided. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the manager and provider to drive improvement.
Staff felt supported by the management team. The registered manager was viewed as being approachable and involved in the day to day management of the service. The leadership and management of the service and its governance systems ensured consistency in the care being provided.
For those people who were not able to tell us about their experiences we spent time observing how staff interacted andsupported them. We looked at their care records and spoke with some of their relatives. We spoke with two relatives, one professional involved with the service, six staff and the registered manager. We also went out into the community with three people and two staff at lunch time. Below is a summary of what we found about the service.
Was it safe?
People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. One person told us, 'I feel safe here.' A relative's comment card had recorded, 'They provide a safe and secure environment.'
People were not put at unnecessary risk and they had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives where possible.
Staff handled medicines safely and records in relation to protocols and temperature checks were in place.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Although no DoLS applications had been made, staff were able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.
Was it effective?
People's health, care and support needs were assessed with people using the service and/or their relative or advocate. This involved writing their plans of care and support. We saw people's support plans were up to date and reflected individual current needs.
People had access to a range of health care professional which included doctors, opticians and dentists.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of the people's support needs and knew people well. We saw the staff had received training to meet the needs of the people using the service.
Was it caring?
We saw people were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People's rights, privacy and dignity were respected. One relative told us, 'The staff are amazing, they are so respectful, kind and caring.'
When speaking with staff it was clear they genuinely cared for the people they supported. People told us the staff were kind and thoughtful. The staff knew how to support people in a caring and sensitive manner.
People had detailed care and support plans relating to all aspects of their support needs. They contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded.
Was it responsive?
People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the service. We saw records where people who used the service had met with their named member of staff on a monthly basis to discuss what was important to them. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been discussed.
People had access to activities in their own home and also in the community. They had been supported to maintain or forge relationships with friends and relatives. One relative said, 'Their social life is way better than mine!'
The staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were aware of how to support people who could not make decisions for themselves when required.
Was it well led?
The provider had a quality assurance system in place. We saw records which showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
There were systems in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents and concerns. This helped to reduce the risks to people using the service and helped the service to continually improve and develop.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and knew there were quality assurance processes in place.
People we spoke with were very positive about the provider. One person told us 'This place has got a heart. They go above and beyond their duty'. Another person stated it's a 'lovely place to be'. Comments included, 'we are very happy with the level of care and compassion received' and 'it's the level of attention to detail, empathy shown, amount of one to one time and understanding of (relative) that makes it good'.
We found that people were treated with respect and that they and their families were involved in decisions about their lives.
People were happy with the care provided. One person who used the service told us that they were 'very very happy here'. We found that care plans and risk assessments were specific to the person and updated on a regular basis.
The provider had up to date and robust policies on ensuring that people were kept safe. They had also carried sufficient out pre employment checks on all staff members.
As part of this inspection we only spoke with one person who used the service due to the degree of learning disability exhibited by people living at the home. We spoke with four relatives, four professionals who have had contact with the service and six members of staff including the registered manager.
We were given mixed information by the people we spoke with. One person we spoke with stated that they were very happy with the care provided and described the provider as 'excellent'. Another stated that there had been seen problems over recent months but that things were improving.
People we spoke with felt that there had been a lack of communication between the provider and families / professionals but this had improved since the new manager had commenced. People spoke highly of the manager and the improvements that they had made to the service.
We found that were some concerns with care plans, safeguarding and pre employment checks on staff.