Archived: Yew Tree Cottage Domiciliary Care

At the last inspection, on 14 and 17 July 2015, the service was rated as good overall. However, as a result of our findings we asked the provider to make improvements to the processes where people did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. We received an action plan detailing how and when the required improvements would be made.

This announced inspection took place on 13 and 14 June 2017. At this inspection we found the provider had made the improvements they had described to us and the service remained good. At the time of this inspection there were five people receiving the service. They all lived together in the same property.

People felt safe receiving the service. 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.

Staff were well trained and well supported. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s nutritional needs were met and 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 caring and respectful towards people. They respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care. People were referred for advocacy when this was required.

People’s care plans were personalised and gave staff clear guidance on meeting each person’s needs. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible and access a range of hobbies 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.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

A family member told us, 'Staff are so patient with (my brother), we feel so lucky he's at such a good place with such caring staff'. Social care professionals we spoke with also spoke highly of the service. One told us, 'The managers there are passionate about disability services and will look for lots of different social programmes for service users to participate in'. Another reported, 'X is very well cared for, he's always happy and well turned out. He often tells us what he's been up to at the house and the staff always let us know what's been going on for him. I think the service is excellent and would definitely recommend it'.

The provider was compliant in all the outcome areas we assessed. We found that that people were treated respectfully, that their independence was promoted and that there were monitoring system in place to ensure that people received a good service.

We noted considerable improvements in the provider's recruitment practices which ensured that people using the service were no longer put at unnecessary risk.