The Yelverton Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider and registered manager had a vision and desired culture for the staff team. The staff team had a good culture and worked together to deliver the best outcomes possible for people using the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The experienced registered manager had been in post for two years. Their leadership has moved the service forward in quality and structure. They and the provider understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. These leaders were visible within the service and led by example to their staff team, demonstrating inclusive behaviours.

One care staff member told us, “(The registered manager) manages the service well – I cannot speak for all staff, but I am certain that everyone would say the same. She is lovely and she knows what she is doing – I could not ask for a better manager.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service worked well with other teams and services to support people. There was trust between other stakeholders and The Yelverton Residential Home. Other stakeholders such as the commissioning Local Authority had full confidence in the management of the home.

Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals involved in each person’s care. There was a relationship of trust and confidence between the service and local GP surgeries and the local community nursing service. The registered manager had an ‘open door’ policy and encouraged staff to speak with them to ensure any issues for them or the people they supported were addressed as soon as possible.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they worked well as a team, and they did what they could to help each other. Staff members told us how leaders supported them both professionally and personally, creating a positive culture amongst the whole staff team.

We heard sponsored staff from other countries were well supported by the service, and in the administration of the service’s sponsorship license. Many sponsored staff worked on nights and the registered manager ensured they met with these staff regularly and individually for supervision, to provide them with the support they needed.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Oversight and governance of the service was taking place effectively. The provider was frequently present in the service and had a full awareness of the quality of the service and was accountable for ensuring the present quality was maintained and continued to improve. Oversight of the service was effectively in place and the day-to-day management of the service was appropriately supervised.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked well with other teams and services to support people. There was a trusting relationship between other stakeholders and the service. Other stakeholders such as the commissioning Local Authority had confidence in the management of the home.

Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals involved in each person’s care. There was a relationship of trust and confidence between the service and the local GP surgeries and the local community nursing service.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manager and provider ensured the service was well led and were promoting a learning culture in the service, so people’s needs were consistently met.

Care staff received regular individual supervision and the registered manager was also supervised by the provider. Supervision was a 2-way process enabling the supervisee to also feed back to their supervisor on potential improvements that could be made to the quality of the service.

There was a formal survey system that collected the views of people, their relatives and staff twice a year. Resident’s meetings were taking place approximately 3 monthly and changes were made in response the feedback received from these sources.