Yew Tree Cottage Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

People told us staff were kind, gentle and responsive, and felt confident to raise concerns if they were unhappy with their care. One person said, “I can’t speak highly enough of the staff; they really go above the expectation.” A relative told us, “[Name] really chooses what he wants to do each day. He would hate to live in a home with lots of organised things like planned activities as that just wouldn't be him at all. They [staff] genuinely care for the people in the home as individuals from what I have seen.”

People’s rooms were personalised, with items important to them, such as family photos and personal belongings. This supported people’s comfort, identity and their sense of home. Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly, and staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s preferred routines and what was important to them.

The provider worked with relevant partners to make sure people experienced joined-up care, and support was coordinated when people’s needs changed.

People told us staff supported them to attend healthcare appointments when needed. Staff described how they completed handovers and how managers provided support, including responding if staff needed help.

The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved in, helping staff understand people’s needs and preferences from the start. Staff obtained comprehensive assessment information from the placing authority and also had an individual personal history completed by family members, which supported the continuity of personalised care.

The provider made sure people received information in ways that supported understanding and choice, and people knew how to access support when they needed it.

People were able to ask for any information they needed and received reassurance about their support from staff. People’s communication needs had been identified, recorded and highlighted so that staff had access to relevant information about how people should be supported. For example, if people needed spectacles or hearing aids to improve communication.

The provider listened to people and those close to them and involved them in decisions about care and support.

People said they felt able to speak up and raise issues. One person said they would tell someone if they were unhappy. Another person told us, “I would complain if I needed to, but I don’t have any complaints.” Relatives knew how to complain and felt confident concerns would be taken seriously and acted on. One relative told us, “I've never had any cause for worry or raise any complaints about anything since [name’s] lived at the home.”

People and relatives were involved in care planning and care plans were reviewed regularly. Staff described trying their best to provide what people wanted and showed strong knowledge of people’s routines and preferences. This showed people were listened to and involved in all aspects of their care.

The provider made sure people could access care and support in a way that met their needs, including when additional help was required.

Care plans included people’s individual needs, including any adjustments which may be required to ensure equal access to care and support. For example, if people had specific mobility needs, care plans explained how those needs should be met. Communal areas were accessible to people with a range of mobility needs. People had the equipment they needed, including a stair lift.

Staff ensured people were able to access the care, support and treatment they required. Relevant external professionals were involved appropriately and advice and guidance sought where needed.

People also told us staff supported them to use external services, such as GP, chiropody and hairdressing. This helped reduce barriers and supported equitable access to the community.

The provider supported people to have fair, inclusive experiences and to achieve outcomes that mattered to them.

People consistently described staff as kind and respectful. There were strong, trusting relationships between people and staff and staff treated people as individuals, respecting privacy, dignity and independence.

The provider supported people to plan ahead, including responding to changes in needs and supporting decisions about future care.

When people felt ready, their end-of-life preferences were sensitively discussed and documented. Treatment escalation plans were in place, which recorded important decisions about how people wanted to be treated if their health deteriorated. This meant people’s preferences were known in advance, so they were not subjected to unwanted interventions or admission to hospital, unless this was their choice.

Feedback and compliments received by the service showed people and their families were kept informed and supported, including during end-of-life care. Comments included: “You [staff] went above and beyond to ensure [name] was comfortable and treated him with dignity and compassion whilst ensuring all the family were always kept informed”, and “[Our family member was treated] with great dignity, comfort and company. It was extraordinary kindness which words fail me to express my thanks for.” This supported people and those close to them to feel reassured about their future care.