Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

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

At our last inspection we rated caring as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness.

Good: They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff mostly informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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 service treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated each other with kindness and respect.

During observation of safety huddles and multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, we saw staff speak about people who used services in an empathetic and respectful way. There was a universal no-judgement approach, and a high sense of teamwork to use all available tools to get the best outcome for people.

Staff consistently spoke with pride about their work and positive progress made by people they worked with. Staff felt confident to raise concerns if they witnessed any inappropriate behaviour by another member of staff.

We observed staff who spoke to each other with kindness and respect. Staff felt able and confident to raise any concerns with their manager.

During observation of appointments, staff were caring and kind to people. They took time to explain, check their understanding and encouraged queries from people, family members and carers. Subjects, such as self-harm, were discussed sensitively with a focus on therapeutic goals and coping mechanisms to prevent reoccurrence.

Following our inspection, we spoke to 16 people who used services and 7 carers. They consistently told us how helpful and kind staff were. Most people told us about the service being responsive, person-centred and supportive. Some carers described the service as a ‘lifeline’ and people reported receiving help from staff with state benefits applications.

The service 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 ensured that people’s appointments reflected the needs of the person using the service. At Chesterfield CMHT (Community Mental Health Team) and North Derbyshire EIP (Early Intervention in Psychosis), when the elevator was not available at Bayheath House, staff contacted people to arrange home visits or appointments at other locations with disabled access.

During our on-site review of 32 care records, we found consistent themes of person-centred care. Risk assessments and care plans were written with the person who used the service, they included individualised comments and goal setting. Staff and managers told us about challenges with care planning because not all people wanted to be involved or gave permission to share information with their carers or family members.

Staff told us about how they worked with the trust’s learning disability team to meet the needs of individuals with additional needs. This contributed to improved outcomes through coordinated support.

Staff and managers told us that interpreters were available, but their accessibility varied between teams. Staff told us leaflets and forms in different languages and easy read forms were available from the learning disability team.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff and managers said they promoted independence for people who used services and empowered them to make their own decisions. They recognised the sensitivity of a risk-based approach but focused on the importance of people being independent and as safe as possible.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of capacity, how this could change and where to seek advice if they had concerns about someone’s capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments and care plans were written with people’s independence at the center, and included people’s risks, goals and coping strategies.

Staff and managers told us the importance of least restrictive treatment and would only use the Mental Health Act if they had explored all alternative options.

Upon referral to the service, carers and family members were given an information pack which provided information about the service, how to support their family member with information about support available for carers and family members.

The service 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.

Each team had their own daily safety huddle to discuss risks of people who used the service. Immediate potential risks for discussion included overnight incidents, presentation to local hospitals, contact with the NHS 111 option 2 service. Follow-up decisions were made alongside staff discussions about their caseload and any existing concerns. During observation of a safety huddle, a decision was made to change home visits for one person who used services from one member of staff to two members of staff.

All teams had a duty worker with the ability to respond to immediate or unplanned risks. We observed an extra appointment being created by the duty worker following a crisis call to Killamarsh CMHT.

People who did not attend appointments were followed up in line with trust policy, as their mental state and associated risks were unknown.

Staff and managers told us of the importance of responding quickly and sensitively to people who were in crisis.

People who used services told us that the teams were ‘highly responsive’, with quick responses to phone calls, text messages and emails.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

The trust’s induction policy confirmed staff received a session from the trust’s wellbeing team as part of their induction process. Staff said they had access to specialist physiotherapy, health check-ups, running groups and on-site access to counsellors.

All staff had access to an occupational health service to support them whilst in and outside of work. We observed a member of staff with a high-raised desk and other staff told us that their working hours had been adjusted to reflect their personal circumstances.

Staff told us they were proud to work for the trust, with strong teamwork being imperative to provide safe care and treatment. Most staff said they felt supported by their managers.

We observed supportive and respectful relationships in each of the staff meetings that we observed. Most staff said they felt valued, although the current transformation process was having a negative effect on staff wellbeing and morale.

Staff said they received a yearly appraisal, most of them found it helpful and included conversations about their development. We requested staff appraisal data which showed overall appraisal compliance for the adult community mental health services in January 2026 as 91%, we did not receive any information for individual teams.