CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Derwent Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments and safe medicines systems. Infection prevention measures were in place, including testing, protective equipment and arrangements for visitors.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff received training and people were supported with nutrition and healthcare. Mental Capacity Act and best-interest processes had improved since the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Care plans, training records and quality audits had improved. The manager was described as supportive, and complaints and feedback were recorded and used to make changes.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found improvements in safe, effective and well-led care since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited on 15 April 2021. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and management audits.
The home was judged safe. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and infection control measures were in place. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and choices, and care plans gave staff useful guidance.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good, following the last inspection published in April 2019. This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
Clear care plans
Care plans gave staff good information about people's needs, preferences and how to support them. There were also brief summaries for staff to use quickly.
“People's care plans provided good guidance for staff about people and how to support them.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors observed people receiving prompt support. The home used a staffing calculator based on residents' individual needs.
“There were enough staff to safely support people.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff offered people choices and supported them to make decisions. People could move around the home freely unless legal safeguards applied.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff asking people's consent and offering them choices and supporting them to make choices.” from the report
Positive activities
People were offered activities and staff adapted them so that people who could not take part directly could still be involved.
“There was a lively activities program which helped to keep people engaged throughout the day.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were recorded, reviewed and used to update care plans and reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Accidents and incidents were analysed and monitored to identify any trends or patterns which may show further actions were needed to prevent any reoccurrences.” from the report
Practical training refresh
needs fixingSome practical training, including moving and handling and insulin competencies, had not recently been refreshed because of the pandemic. The manager said this would be addressed when it was safe.
“The registered manager told us they were aware that practical training, for example moving and handling and insulin competencies had not recently been refreshed.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorSome relatives said they had to remind staff about parts of their loved one's care, such as wearing a hearing aid. The home had introduced a communication book to improve follow-up.
“During our feedback calls with relatives some expressed concerns about communication at the home.” from the report
- 01How and when have moving and handling and insulin training been refreshed since this inspection?
- 02How does the communication book work, and how are requests from relatives checked and recorded?
- 03What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
- 04How are care plans and daily records checked to make sure they still reflect my relative's needs and choices?
- 05How will you keep relatives updated about changes in care and health?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 2021 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, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but records, mental capacity work and management systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 26 February 2019. Inspectors reviewed care, medicines, staff records, rotas, incidents, complaints and quality checks. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe, staff treated them kindly, medicines were managed safely, and activities and care were tailored to their wishes. There were enough staff, the home was clean, and people had access to health professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Care plans did not always show people's current needs. Mental capacity assessments did not always explain how decisions had been reached or show whose views had been considered. Training records did not give full oversight of staff training, including insulin training.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in June 2016, to Requires Improvement. The manager had started an action plan and made some changes during the inspection, but CQC said more time was needed to put them into everyday practice.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, clear risk assessments and regular safety checks of the building.
“People told us they always felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors watched medicines being given and found that staff checked records, stayed with people and stored medicines securely. No gaps were found in the records reviewed.
“We observed medicines being given and found staff checked, gave and stored medicines in line with current guidance.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors saw staff respond sensitively when someone was upset.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and their choices and preferences respected.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Activities reflected people's interests and personal histories. Care planning included information about people's routines, likes and dislikes.
“People consistently received care that was personalised to them.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People had choices about food and drink, including support and adapted equipment where needed. Inspectors also found regular involvement from health and social care professionals.
“People's nutritional needs were consistently met.” from the report
Care plans were not always current
needs fixingSome care plans did not fully describe people's current needs or the actions staff should take. The manager addressed the examples identified by the second day, but this needed to be sustained.
“People's care plans were not always reflective of their current support needs.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousSome mental capacity assessments did not clearly explain people's answers or show that relatives, advocates or other relevant people had been involved. This made it unclear how some decisions had been reached.
“There was limited written evidence to demonstrate that the person's views and those involved in their care such as relatives or social workers had been taken into consideration.” from the report
Training oversight
seriousThe training plan was not up to date. There was no record that staff had received training to give insulin to three people, although the manager arranged competency checks during the inspection.
“There was no record of staff having received the training to do this.” from the report
People's meetings
needs fixingThe provider's policy said people should be offered meetings every three months, but only one meeting had taken place in 2018. The manager had an action plan to improve this.
“The provider's policy stated that people should be offered meetings quarterly, however only one had been held in 2018.” from the report
Accessible information
minorSome easy-read information was available, but pictorial menus and complaints forms had not yet been introduced. The manager had sourced pictures but needed more time to implement them.
“People did not have pictorial menus or complaints forms.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that each person's care plan reflects their current needs and the actions staff should take?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded, including the person's views and the involvement of relatives, advocates or professionals?
- 03How do you record and monitor staff training and competency, particularly for staff who give insulin?
- 04How often are residents' meetings now held, and how are people who communicate differently supported to take part?
- 05Are pictorial menus and complaints forms now available for people who need easy-read information?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care and premises covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good in a report published on 3 June 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 April 2019 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 Derwent Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Derwent Residential Care Home →
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Derwent Residential Care Home →
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.