You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 February 2017

The inspection took place on 10 and 12 January 2017. The registered manager received 24 hours notice of our visit so that we could be sure people using the service would be available to talk to when we visited. A previous inspection, on 28 February 2013 found that the standards we looked at were met. The service had been closed between December 2013 and September 2014 due to flooding and repair work.

Pine Park provides respite to a maximum of six people at any one time. The service was set up to provide short breaks for people with a learning disability. Associated conditions includes people living with autism or sensory impairment. There was one person using the service the first day of our visit and two people using the service the second day of our visit. In all, the service provided respite to a maximum of 27 people.

Pine Park has a registered manager who is also the registered manager of New Treetops, which is another respite service run by Devon County Council. 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.

People received a safe service. No new staff had been employed since 2015 but recruitment practice was in line with Devon County Council recruitment policy. This ensured all checks, to ensure new staff were safe to work in a care environment, were completed.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people from abuse and harm. Each person had comprehensive assessments of any risks, such as choking. Those risks were well managed.

The staffing arrangements ensured people were safe and that their planned care could be delivered flexibily and to meet their individual needs.

The premises was well maintained, safe and clean. Bedrooms were adapted to each person for when they were admitted.

Medicines were administered as prescribed, with checks in place to ensure this was done in a safe way. People were supported to manage their own medicines where possible.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions, and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. The service had sought appropriate advice and was meeting people's legal rights in relation to MCA and DoLS.

People commented positively about the food. The menu was varied but flexible, in accordance with people’s preferences and needs. Specialist diets were very well managed.

People's views were sought throughout the day, through their care plan reviews, meetings and through yearly questionnaires about the service. People said they had no reason to complain but they knew how to do so. The standard of communication, and openness of the management, provided people, their family representatives and staff with confidence to raise any suggestion or issue.

People were treated with respect and dignity. People and their family representatives were very complimentary about the care and kindness staff provided. People enjoyed their time at Pine Park. People had a wide range of activities available to them. Friendships with other people using the service were promoted. Staff understood and were able to meet people’s needs and wishes.

People’s health care needs were met through the well organised arrangements with external health care professionals. This provided a safe service when people were visiting Pine Park and promoted their health when they were back at home

Staff were well trained, supervised and supported. They spoke of their pride in the work they did and how well the service

Inspection areas



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was safe.

Recruitment practices ensured only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.

Individual risks were very well assessed and managed.

Medicines were handled in a safe way for people.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s care and

support needs.

People were protected from abuse and harm.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was effective.

People’s legal rights were upheld.

People’s health care needs were met through effective contact with external health care professionals.

People liked the food and they received a healthy, balanced diet according to their preferences and needs.

Staff were trained, supervised and supported in their work roles.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was caring.

People had made caring relationships with staff and other residents. They were treated with kindness.

People were treated with respect and dignity. Their privacy was upheld.

People’s views were sought and listened to.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care was planned in detail with them and they received person centred care from staff who knew their needs well.

People enjoyed active and interesting lives and their independence was promoted.

People felt confident to raise any concerns or complaints.



Updated 9 February 2017

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. These included seeking people’s views and audits and checks by the registered manager and provider.

There was a strong culture of putting people first. Staff were proud of what they achieved for people.

Statutory responsibilities were being met.