The Yelverton Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Peoples’ care plans and risk assessments were managed on an electronic computer system. The care plan format contained all the necessary information to deliver a person’s care and support, and there was an ‘About Me’ summary of how the person liked to live and all their preferences. The information for this summary was gathered after a person’s arrival in the home. The person would have a chat with a care staff member they trusted to find out all about them and their likes and dislikes, so the service could fully meet their individual needs.

Families of the people that used the service were involved in their relative’s care planning, with consent, so they knew how their relative was, and the support they were receiving. Many relatives accessed their loved one’s care records using the Family and Friends App. This gave relatives who lived a distance from the service and/or could not visit frequently, access to the individual person’s care planning for reassurance.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

All care tasks were recorded by the care staff on handheld devices which they carried with them and the information on tasks being delivered was uploaded directly onto the care electronic system. Most people living at The Yelverton Residential Home had low personal care needs. Most people could walk independently and take part in activities of their choosing.For example, most people could manage their own oral healthcare and glasses. However, the provider had arranged for a dentist to visit everyone in the home every 6 months to do a check-up of their oral health, and an optician also visited the home annually. Staff accompanied and supported people to hospital appointments where family were not available to do so.

A new call bell system had been installed in the home, and we heard calls being answered quickly.The new system required a care staff member to press an attendance button with the resident to cancel the call bell, which recorded that the call had been attended to.

Some people did have significant personal care needs. These people’s care planning was thorough reflecting how each care issue was to be met by the care staff. For example, one person was at risk of pressure area skin damage and used an air cushioning mattress. This person’s weight was recorded monthly, and an assessment was made to ensure that the persons nutrition was maintained as well as possible to support the integrity of their skin. A food received chart was available on the care planning system, which was effectively used by some people in the home.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The care and domestic staff worked well together as one effective team to deliver active and fulfilling lives for people as well as meeting their care needs. One care staff member said, “It is a lovely laid-back home and I felt safe as soon as I walked in. People are not rushed and you get a warm welcome from the care staff, and the management are great, and we all work as one (team).”

The Yelverton Residential Home worked closely with health and social care services in Plymouth and Devon. There was constructive communication between the home’s management and staff with health and social care professionals working in the community. For example, community nurses regularly visited the home to support people with nursing care needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

This assessment took place at the end of the first of the summer 2026 heatwaves. The service had acted exceptionally by being creative and effective in managing the temperature for people during this heatwave. For example, electric fans had been provided to each person, and a paddling pool had been set up in the rear garden. People had been provided with seats in the shade around the pool while they lowered their body temperature by dipping their feet in the pool.

The service took pride in the quality of the food provided to people, and to the staff. There was a chef cooking 7 days of the week with a kitchen porter to support them in the kitchen every day. We saw the excellent quality and choice of food provided. For example, vegetarian and gluten free options from the main meal were provided daily. Every day the chef made a fresh cake for the afternoon tea trolley. The main pudding at the lunchtime meal on our first visit was individual home-made fruit meringues.

Every morning each person was asked what they would prefer to have for their main lunchtime meal the following day, and for their evening meal on that day.Though there was a seasonal menu plan, if a person did not want what was on offer, the chef would make them something they preferred. Recently an updated menu plan was tried but due to people’s feedback the previous menu had been reinstated. The service also purchased a selection of beers, wines and spirits people could have with meals or at any other time of the day as they wished.

A tea trolley was brought to every person both in the morning and again in the afternoon from which people could have a selection of drinks, cakes and biscuits of their choice. People were also brought fresh squash of their choice in the morning and in the evening. One person said, “I prefer a jug of blackcurrant in my room daily”.

Most people came to the dining room for their main meal each day. This area was well decorated, presented and maintained, with all new furniture in place. For example, fresh flowers were displayed in the dining area every day.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff responded quickly to incidents that took place. The needs of the person were always reviewed after any incident, such as a fall, and the best action followed to support the person. For example, one person had suffered several recent falls. A ground floor room was identified they could move into and in consultation with the person and their family they had moved to this room to better monitor their needs.

Resident’s meetings took place every 3 or 4 months and were effective in delivering change. These were well attended and feedback resulted in action from the service. For example, at the last meeting people fed back they would rather have the previous menu rather than the new one. The service then reintroduced the previously used menu.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service supported a small number of people living with dementia and their needs were at a low level of dependency. The provider planned to increase training in dementia care for the care staff and also to introduce more signage in specific areas of the home.

The service had a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) Policy that covered all aspects of the MCA. All those who needed to have a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) in place for their own safety had one applied for by the service to the Local Authority.

The service had access to a format for Best Interests processes under the MCA for recording of necessary safety restrictions where people lacked capacity to make their own choices. However, no such safety restrictions were in use, and so the Best Interests processes were not presently required.