Pear Tree Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.People told us they felt well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. However, there were shortfalls identified in this area.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. One relative told us about an act of kindness from staff over Christmas. They said, “They are brilliant, they know their job and they go out of their way to help. A couple of years ago I was ill at Christmas and couldn’t go in and join mum for Christmas dinner as I usually did. There was a knock on my door and two members of staff stood there carrying a Christmas dinner for me on a plate from the home, I couldn’t believe how kind that was”. Another relative told us, “Although they [person] didn’t want to go into a home they agreed to try it. From the day they went in they’ve had a smile on their face and been happy”.

We saw staff treating people with kindness and were discreet when people needed assistance with personal care.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date, consistent or contain detailed information in respect of people’s individual needs, likes and preferences.Staff knew the people they supported well but there was limited information in the care records about what was important to people, their history and life before going into the service.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service provided activities; however, the service had been without an activity’s coordinator for a period of time and activities were only held in an afternoon. We found activities were not always inclusive. For example, there were 2 sessions across a 2-week period in which staff would do people’s nails and do a ‘pamper session’. These activities were enjoyed primarily by the women who used the service but did not appeal as much to the men. In the morning people sat in communal areas with limited stimulation and minimal staff presence. One person told us, “The only real issue here is that there is not much to do”. We heard how the previous activities coordinator had taken one person out into the community, but this was not a regular occurrence. People relied on family to support them to access the community.

We observed that although adapted cutlery was available, staff did not support the person to use it, limiting their independence and dignity during mealtimes.

When we arrived at the service on the first day, we saw signage on the front door restricting visitors over mealtimes. When we raised this with the registered manager this was removed and they assured us they would review practices and communication with families about this. One person told us, “They (family) can visit whenever they like, there is no problem, they do ask if visitors don't come at mealtimes, but we don’t mind because it can be difficult when we are eating.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff knew the people they supported well and were responsive to their needs. We saw staff communicating with people in a way that was effective for those people.

Staff made referrals to other health professionals for support appropriately and in a timely way.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff all took their breaks at the same time in the communal lounge, meaning if people needed assistance during this time staff would need to come off their breaks. Some staff felt this worked well and were happy to have their breaks interrupted, whilst others felt it was an issue.

Staff told us how staff meetings were not always productive or well managed and feedback was not always encouraged or acted on.

Staff were responsible for ensuring cooks followed people’s modified diet requirements. However, there was no evidence they had received training to safely prepare or provide these diets, leaving the provider unable to assure staff competence or safety.

Staff meeting minutes did not evidence the opportunity for staff to provide feedback or raise concerns.

Staff told us the provider was supportive and accommodating when it came to working patterns and childcare.

One staff member who required additional help to complete their training told us how adjustments were made to ensure they could access and understand the learning materials, and they told us this enabled them to complete the required training successfully.