We carried out a review of the data available to us about Yew Tree Cottage on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Yew Tree Cottage, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and wore personal protective equipment (PPE).
The home had an ample supply of PPE. All staff had received training in the correct use of PPE, and how to take it off and put it on safely.
People were supported to have regular contact with their families and friends via video calling and telephone calls. One person was also receiving window visits from a family member. The registered manager also kept in contact with people’s families.
Whole home testing was carried out for both people living in the home and staff on a regular basis. If anyone had symptoms of COVID-19 they were tested immediately and isolated until the results were received.
Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection. There were ample supplies of cleaning equipment. People living in the home were also involved in the cleaning.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 11 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The registered manager, management team and staff working in the service were all very dedicated to providing care and support to people in an individual and meaningful way. Staff knew people’s needs in detail including, their likes and dislikes and their goals for the future, which they helped them to achieve. People were encouraged and supported to take part in work, voluntary and social activities that they enjoyed. Staff were kind, caring and promoted people’s privacy and independence where possible.
People felt safe and were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained to recognise and report any concerns. Risks to people’s health and safety were identified and safely managed. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. People received their medication as prescribed. There were systems in place to record, monitor and learn from accidents and incidents. People lived in a clean, hygienic environment.
Staff had the knowledge, skills and support they required to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s physical, emotional and social needs were identified so staff could meet these. People received support with eating and drinking when needed. People were supported to maintain good health and were supported by or referred to the relevant healthcare professionals.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (report published August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This is the first inspection since the provider added the service to their registration in June 2016.
This inspection took place on 11 July 2017. At the time of this inspection there were 11 people receiving the service.
People who received the service felt safe because systems were in place to manage risks appropriately and to protect people from avoidable harm. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and staff recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Where it was safe to do so, staff supported people to manage their own medicines.
People received care from staff who were well trained, well supported and felt valued. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing and to access a range of healthcare professionals.
Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards people. They respected people’s privacy and dignity. People benefitted from good relationships with the staff and registered manager. People were involved making decisions about their day to day lives. People were referred for advocacy when this was required.
People’s health and welfare were met by staff who were responsive to people’s needs. People’s care plans were being reviewed to make them more personalised reflect clear goals. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible and access a range of hobbies, interests and activities, including work placements. People and their relatives knew who to speak to if they were not happy with the service and were confident that the registered manager and staff would listen to them.
The registered manager was approachable. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to put forward their views about the service. The registered manager monitored the quality of the care by a range of audits that they regularly carried out and acted on suggestions to improve the service. The registered manager sought advice from experts where they did not have the necessary skills or knowledge.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.