The Yelverton Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were clear processes in place to ensure visitors to the service were prevented from catching and spreading infection. A booking system was in use to monitor visitors into the home. One relative said, “We have to complete an LFT test and wear a mask. We are welcomed here.”

The provider ensured a sufficient stock of appropriate PPE and there was signage to remind staff and visitors about the correct guidance for donning, doffing and disposing of PPE.

People were cared for by staff who understood the importance of keeping people safe and reducing the risk of spreading Covid19. The provider had policies and systems in place that supported this.

Staff confirmed they had received the necessary information, training, guidance and support to keep people safe and were following procedures. People we spoke with confirmed this. One person told us, "They are cleaning all the time and the staff all wear [PPE]."

Staff compliance with infection prevention and control procedures was monitored through supervision and observed practice.

There was frequent cleaning of touch points and high traffic areas to ensure the home was clean and we saw this during our inspection.

The Yelverton Residential home can accommodate up to 28 people in an Edwardian house situated on the village green of Yelverton situated near to the market town of Tavistock and the city of Plymouth. The home consists of three floors with a six person passenger lift and stair lifts providing level access to each floor. With a main communal lounge, dining area and a library room where people could spend their time as they chose. To the front and rear of the house were courtyard areas which people could use if they chose, with the rear courtyard being secure.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 16 and 22 March 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. This meant that the provider and staff did not know we were coming. This was the first inspection of this service since it registered with The Care Quality Commission (CQC) in March 2017.

At the time of this inspection there were 24 people using the service. One of these people was staying at the service for a period of respite.

There was a registered manager who was one of the directors of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.

The registered manager was supported by the general manager who was also a director and the other two directors took an active role.

People and relatives were very positive about the service. Comments included, “This is such a wonderful home. I’m so lucky that my son managed to find a place here, so lucky” and “I enjoy living here. Everyone is very friendly and helpful.”

Safe recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate pre-employment checks were undertaken. There was a sufficient number of staff on duty to care for people safely. Where there were any shortfalls the provider used the services of a local care agency. Staff were up to date with training and additional training courses linked to the needs of the people using the service had been completed by staff. Equality and Diversity was part of the provider's mandatory training requirements. People were cared for without discrimination and in a way that respected their differences.

Care records contained detailed risk assessments. People had individual personal emergency evacuation plans in place. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to look for patterns or trends. Regular maintenance checks and repairs were carried out and all areas of the service were clean and tidy.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The registered manager had been working with the local authority Deprivation of Liberties (DoLS) team regarding submitted appropriate DoLS applications. Capacity assessments were being undertaken and best interest decisions were being recorded.

Staff felt well supported and regular supervision sessions were undertaken and annual appraisals were planned. Staff said they felt involved with the development of the service with regular staff meetings. One said “Quite helpful…felt listened to.”

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to health professionals when needed. People were happy with the food they received. There was a varied menu containing well balanced nutritious options. Snacks and drinks were available if people required them. People's weights were monitored regularly and advice sought from health professionals if there were any concerns.

People and their relatives were happy with the way care was delivered and happy with the staff approach. Staff interacted positively with people who used the service and had a good knowledge of the people they cared for. Relatives were made to feel welcome and were involved in the care planning process. The provider used a computerised care records system which enabled relatives, when appropriate consent had been granted, to access care records. Staff provided care in a way that protected people's privacy and dignity and promoted independence.

People were receiving care that was tailored to their individual needs. Care plans contained detailed information, including life history, to help staff support people in a personalised way.

This was a new service with a small team. The registered manager said they had worked hard to get the right staff and it had only been in the last couple of months they had their nearly complete team. Staff said there was a good team spirit at the service.

The registered manager was committed to ensuring people experienced end of life care in an individualised and dignified way. There were numerous thank you messages from relatives regarding the good quality care people had received at the end of their lives at the service.

A staff member was responsible for co-ordinating activities and there was a varied timetable of events. They were new to their role and with the registered manager’s support had plans to develop activities further.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint if necessary. The registered manager had had two complaints since the service had opened. They had responded to the complaints in line with the provider’s policy and had made changes as a result of lessons learnt.

The provider had a quality monitoring system at the service. The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe. Records contained accurate and up to date information relating to people's care needs.

Staff meetings took place every month and staff felt able to discuss any issues with the registered manager. Feedback was also sought from people using the service and relatives in a variety of ways. A cheese and wine meeting had been scheduled, a survey had been carried out, a suggestion box and comments book was also in place. A small group of people, relatives and staff were being sent surveys each month to ask their views about the service. Staff spoke highly about the registered manager and management team.

The service had close links with healthcare professionals who gave positive feedback regarding the knowledge and cooperation of management and staff.