The service was registered to accommodate 18 people, 16 people were in residence at the time of our unannounced inspection. The majority of people were not able to communicate with us, those who could told us they were happy and felt safe living at Derwent View. 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.