• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Peartree House Care Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

24 Gordon Road, Chingford, London, E4 6BU (020) 8524 7680

Provided and run by:
Tamaris (South East) Limited

All Inspections

3 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced and was carried out over four days on 3, 9, 10 and 14 June 2016.

At the last inspection completed on 9 March 2015, the service was asked to improve their systems to check and maintain the safety and suitability of the building and there was no registered manager in post.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manager the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection there was a registered manager at the home. However improvements had not been made to the maintenance of the environment.

Peartree House is a care home that provides residential care for people living with dementia. It is registered for 55 people. At the time of inspection there were 34 people using the service.

We found safety issues around the outside garden area of the building and we asked the service to take immediate action. There were also areas within the building that were in need of maintenance and refurbishment. The auditing systems were not effective because the provider had failed to take action in a timely manner on areas of concern identified by these checks.

People and their relatives felt the service was safe and staff were skilled in giving care. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing. The service had safe recruitment practices and there were enough staff to support people with their needs. Staff received training opportunities and new staff received an induction programme of training. Staff also received regular supervisions and appraisals. Medicines were managed safely. People had an assessment of their needs and risk management plans were in place to mitigate risks.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary requirements and people had a choice of food and fluids from a varied and nutritious menu. People had access to healthcare professionals as they required it. Staff knew how to deliver personalised care and were knowledgeable about people’s preferences. There was a variety of activities on offer which included activities away from the home.

The service worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable about when they needed to obtain consent from people and about how to maintain people’s privacy and dignity whilst maintaining their independence.

The provider had systems in place to check the quality of service provided. People and their representatives were able to give feedback through quality surveys and meetings. Staff attended regular team meetings to receive updates and guidance on giving effective care.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

27 January and 9 March 2015

During a routine inspection

Peartree House is a care home that provides residential care for people living with dementia. It is registered for 55 people but at the time of this inspection there were 33 people using the service. At the last inspection on 12 July 2013, the service was meeting the legal requirements. This inspection was unannounced and was carried out over two days on 27 January and 9 March 2015.

Systems to check and maintain the safety and suitability of equipment and the building were not always done or followed up in a timely way. People told us they felt safe using the service. Staff were knowledgeable about the safeguarding and whistleblowing procedure. Risk assessments were in place which informed staff how to support people safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment checks were carried out for new staff to keep people safe. People’s medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.

Staff received training to support them to carry out their role effectively. People consented to the care they received and were supported to make choices in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service referred people to health professionals as needed. People could choose what they wanted to eat and drink from the menu and special requests were catered for.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s independence, offer choice and maintain their privacy and confidentiality. We observed caring interaction between staff and people using the service.

The service carried out assessments of people’s needs and care plans were in place that were regularly reviewed. The service had arrangements for staff to follow when dealing with foreseeable emergencies. The manager responded to complaints in line with the complaints policy.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care and support in the home and to obtain feedback from people using the service, their families and representatives. The acting manager was supported by other home managers and higher management within the organisation. Staff told us the manager was approachable and supportive to them and they felt comfortable raising concerns.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager at this home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are “registered persons.” Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

12 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to four people, two relatives and observed care provided to nine people living with varying degrees of dementia. We saw positive interactions between staff and people. Care plans we reviewed were up to date except for one which was due to be reviewed in June 2013 but had not yet been reviewed as the keyworker had gone on leave.

Before care was given staff explained what they were going to do and offered people choice. For those who could not express themselves coherently, staff paid attention to body language and facial expression. Staff were aware of the deprivation of liberty safeguards and were able explain when this was required.

We observed staff use protective clothing and wash their hands appropriately. The home was clean. The COSHH cupboard was locked and peoples laundry was segregated.

We checked medicine records and found them updated. Staff who gave medicine had all attended an update session in 2013. Staff were able to explain the ordering, administering, storage and disposal of medicine.

There were appropriate recruitment and selection procedures in place. We checked five staff files and found that all had two references and appropriate disclosure checks.

Equipment was clean and had service dates. Several quality audits had been completed and included infection control, medication and documentation. People were able to express their views to the manager and by completing a customer satisfaction survey.

29 November 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We went back to inspect Peartree House Care Home because during our previous inspection on 24/05/2012 we had identified trip hazards and that bathrooms corridors and lounges needed repairs. On our return we found that the trip hazards had been identified by yellow and black tape and the bathrooms, lounge and rooms had been redecorated.

24 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us that they were happy with the service. Some said staff were 'ok'. Others said that their privacy and dignity was maintained. Most of the people we spoke to said they were able to choose what to wear and chose what they ate and where they wanted to go.

We observed people who could not speak to us in a coherent manner engaged in various activities such as knitting, watching television, reading the newspaper. Another person was actively involved in doll therapy. This is when dolls are used to engage with people living with Dementia. The person was seen smiling and talking to the doll. One person was restless, a few people were withdrawn. However most of the people we observed were in a positive mood or engaged in some form of activity.