CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Derby Heights Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Derby Heights Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and at whether staffing pressures were affecting care. The inspection was announced with one hour's notice.
The home was closed to non-essential visitors during the outbreak. People could stay in touch through video calls, telephone calls and window visits. Essential care givers and families of people receiving end-of-life care could still visit under the guidance in force at the time.
Inspectors found screening, testing, cleaning, PPE and handwashing arrangements in place. Staff were observed using PPE properly, and the infection-control policy was up to date. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks and COVID-related staffing pressures.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide an overall quality rating or a new rating for the five standard questions.
Infection control
Inspectors found arrangements for screening, PPE, testing, cleaning and handwashing. Staff were observed using PPE correctly during the visit.
“Staff were observed wearing PPE appropriately on the day of our visit.” from the report
Outbreak management
The home had restricted non-essential visits during the outbreak while helping people keep contact with relatives and friends in other ways.
“People were supported to contact their relatives and friends through video calls and telephone calls and window visits during this time.” from the report
Staffing pressures
The provider had measures in place to reduce the risks linked to staff pressures caused by COVID-19.
“The provider had measures in place to mitigate the risks associated with COVID-19 related staff pressures” from the report
Up-to-date policy
Inspectors found that the infection prevention and control policy was current.
“The infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you manage visits if there was another infection outbreak?
- 02How would you keep residents in contact with relatives if non-essential visits had to stop?
- 03How do you check that staff are using PPE and following handwashing procedures correctly?
- 04How do COVID-related staffing pressures affect staffing on the unit where my relative would live?
- 05How often are residents and staff tested when there is an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some dementia care plans and medicines instructions needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked records about care, staffing and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally said staff were kind, respectful and knew them well. Inspectors also found good training, safe medicines handling, suitable food and access to health professionals.
There were some gaps. Some care plans for people living with dementia did not explain clearly how staff should respond when people became confused or distressed. Medicines care plans were also not in place where people might need personalised help. The report says improvements were discussed with management.
There was no registered manager in post during the inspection, although an interim manager was in charge. A registered manager was appointed shortly afterwards. The Good rating means inspectors judged the service to be meeting the relevant standards at the time of this inspection, while still noting areas to improve.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently praised staff for being caring, patient and respectful. Staff were said to know people personally and understand how to support them.
“People said the staff were caring and kind.” from the report
People involved in care
Care plans recorded people's choices and preferences. Staff consulted people during the inspection and encouraged relatives to be involved where appropriate.
“During our inspection visit we saw staff continually consulting with people and asking them for their choices and preferences.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff received general and specialist training, with supervision and competency checks. People were supported to access GPs and other health professionals.
“Records showed that staff training was delivered by in-house trainers, regional trainers, external training providers, the NHS and the local authority.” from the report
Good meals and activities
People could choose from varied meals or request alternatives. The home offered group and individual activities, including singing, entertainers, church visits and trips out.
“The atmosphere was relaxed and sociable and the dining room well-staffed.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could give feedback through meetings, newsletters and questionnaires. Audits were used to identify and track improvements.
“The provider used audits to check on the quality of the service.” from the report
Dementia care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain exactly how staff should reassure or distract people who became confused, distressed or wanted to leave. This could make consistent support harder, even though staff managed these situations well during the inspection.
“However, some care plans for people living with dementia were in need of improvement.” from the report
Medicines support was not fully documented
needs fixingMedicines records were clear and administration was observed to be safe. However, medicines care plans were not in place to explain personalised support, such as what to do if someone refused medicines.
“However they did not have medicines care plans, so staff did not have instructions about what to do if, for example, a person refused their medicines.” from the report
Some reported delays on the first floor
needs fixingMost people were satisfied with staffing, but three people said more staff were needed on the first floor. One person reported sometimes waiting a long time for a call bell response, although inspectors found enough staff during their visit.
“Sometimes I have to wait for half an hour.” from the report
A previous safeguarding procedure was not followed
seriousRecords showed that staff had recorded and photographed bruising but had not taken further action on one occasion. The report says staff were retrained and later understood their safeguarding responsibilities.
“This was when bruising was seen on a person. Care staff noted the bruising and took photographs of it but took no further action.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to dementia care plans, and how do you check that staff follow the personalised guidance?
- 02Which residents have medicines care plans now, and what instructions are staff given if someone refuses or needs extra help with medicines?
- 03What are the current staffing levels on the first floor, including at weekends and at night?
- 04What action is taken now when bruising, injuries or other safeguarding concerns are found?
- 05Who is the registered manager now, and how are relatives kept informed about changes in care or management?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and considered the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Derby Heights Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 August 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.