The Yelverton 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 people’s needs.

The service was designed to be flexible to support each person as an individual. Peoples’ individual lifestyles demonstrated the service was flexible to meet individual needs.

The service always respected people’s personal preferences. People were offered genuine choice in their daily living activities, food, care and social activity choices.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Timely referrals had been made to external healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a service guide which was reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The service could provide this information in other languages if English was not a person’s first language. This was provided to people considering or beginning to use the service.

The provider sent out a newsletter to all residents and their relatives every other month. This included forthcoming activities taking place inside the home and plans for trips out of the home.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a complaints investigation procedure, and this had been used effectively when necessary. Few complaints had been made over the previous years, and these had been resolved quickly when they had occurred. The 6 monthly survey system showed positive feedback about the quality of the service and there were regular residents’ meetings.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Discussions with the registered manager showed they understood how to access specialist health or social care support. For example, specialist support was obtained for assessment from a community mental health team.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and human rights. People were supported by the service to have a good and varied quality of life, living at the care home.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was a policy and procedure about how the service would support someone who was coming to the end of their life. The service had supported people to put in place DNR/CPR advance directives when necessary.

Staff had experience supporting people coming to the end of their lives and ensured that people had access to appropriate palliative care treatment and pain relief medications.