The Yelverton Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and events within the service were recorded, reviewed and then acted on. Staff and the management team effectively monitored for themes and trends and responded to the findings of each investigation. We found the management team were open and transparent and took action to further improve the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff and the management team worked with external professionals to support people. A person had recently moved from another care home, as The Yelverton Residential Home was better placed to meet their needs. The person had been supported well to maintain continuity and to receive health support from local health services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were treated with respect and their dignity maintained. For example, staff knocked before entering peoples’ rooms. The provider shared any issues quickly and appropriately with the health and social care system.

Staff had received safeguarding training and staff and managers were fully aware of safeguarding processes to use if necessary. One care staff member told us, “If I had any safeguarding concerns or witnessed any abuse, I would report to my line manager unless it was them and then I would go to (the provider) and also do an incident report and report to CQC as well. The process of what to do is within the training and we have folders in the care office and our duty managers are amazing.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found all those who used the service and did not have capacity to make informed choices, had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) application, or approved order, in place.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments relating to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service were completed and updated. There was equipment available to help people manage risks safely, such as pressure mat sensors. However, no one needed to use such equipment at present.

People, where they had capacity and wished to do so, and their relatives if desired, were involved in care planning and risk assessments. People’s relatives were also involved with their care planning and therefore their risk assessments.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service was well maintained and felt homely. Inside and outside the building was clean and tidy. The service had plenty of washing facilities. The service had 4 shower wet rooms and another bathroom for potentially a maximum of 28 people. The home had a shaft lift that accessed 3 floors of the building. There was also a short stairlift to access a 1st floor wing to access 3 rooms. However, most people were able to move around without assistance. Peoples’ rooms were personalised as they wanted, with some of their own furniture brought in to make it their own home.

The dining area was large and was able to seat everyone who wanted to come to the dining area for mealtimes. This area was also used frequently for events such as birthday parties. There was a separate lounge room next to this area and the separate library communal room to enable people to sit where they wanted and with whom they wanted.

People sat outside in both the patio areas to the rear of the service and in the front garden. Both the rear and front garden areas were well maintained giving relaxed and pleasant garden areas for people to enjoy while also being safe and secure. The intensity of the hot weather had been fully considered and there was plenty of shade provided.

Facilities, equipment and technology are well-maintained, used for their intended purpose and consistently support staff to deliver safe and effective care. Where the provider was responsible, there were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises, bringing in professionally qualified people to complete the necessary environmental and equipment checks.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider was investing in the numbers of staff on duty, their roles and their skills. There were sufficient numbers of care, domestic and kitchen staff on duty throughout the day and at weekends to meet peoples’ individual needs. One staff member said, “There are plenty of staff here – there are 6 (care) staff here in the morning, so for the people we have, if people want a shower, they can have one and there is no saying you can’t at the moment, so that is so great here.”

There were 2 duty managers in addition to the registered manager overseeing care every day. This ensured there was always a manager present and responsible for the delivery of care, to maintain the quality of the care delivered.

Care staff were deployed effectively over the 3 floors of the building to meet the needs of everyone living in different parts of the building. Call bells were answered promptly, and to cancel the call bell staff had to enter the person’s room to submit a bar code using their hand held recording device. This ensured the times recorded to respond to calls for assistance were accurate and demonstrated they were answered promptly.

Staff had completed the extensive mandatory training required by the provider. This included training on diabetes care and the Mental Capacity Act. The provider was planning to deliver the mandatory government training requirement on supporting people with learning disability or autism soon.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

We found the service was clean and people commented positively about how well the cleanliness was maintained by the service. The kitchen was clean and tidy and the kitchen had always retained a 5 star Food Hygiene Certificate. The separate laundry room building was also well maintained, clean and with easily cleanable surfaces.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was easily available to staff, and they were using it consistently. This clinical waste was being appropriately disposed of using specific waste bins.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medication administration was well managed and medication stock levels carefully monitored to ensure the home was not holding more medicines than necessary. The storage of medicines was tidy, secure and well maintained.

Almost all staff had received the required in person medication training. Care staff who had taken on the role were well trained in medication administration.

Appropriate directions on the management of all medicines taken ‘as required’ (PRN) were held on the electronic medicines administration system. Recording of medicines administration was thorough.

Staff were working hard to meet the challenge of keeping the medication storage room cool during very hot weather to ensure people’s medication was stored within safe temperature limits. There was shading, ventilation and fans in the medication room which achieved the correct temperature.