Social Care Solutions (Rothwell) Also known as Peartree Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The interactions that we observed between staff and people were person-centred and generally reflected the culture that staff, people and relatives told us existed in the service. Staff understood people’s likes and dislikes and worked with them to shape their daily routines, activities and engagement in ways that reflected what mattered to them. People told us they felt listened to and able to make choices about how they spent their time.

People had keyworkers and we saw that regular review meetings were taking place that involved people and their relatives. People’s flats had been personalised based on their likes and dislikes and each flat we visited represented the individual’s personality.

While the service is supported living and there was no communal lounge, people felt they were part of a community at Pear Tree and often came together as friends. A staff member told us, “We celebrate birthdays as a community. For example, last week everyone came together in a flat for a full roast dinner, with balloons and cake.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care and support from a group of the same care staff which enabled continuity. Staff had specific or enhanced training with regards to the people they supported and had a good understanding of people’s health needs. For example, where a person required specific moving and handling equipment, the registered manager worked with external professionals to source appropriate equipment and the provider’s training team to deliver training and competencies.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 onwards, all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The provider had a range of easy-read documents available, for example, a service user guide was supplied to new people joining the service and this was available in other accessible formats, if required.

Staff told us they would provide information to people based on the communication preferences identified in their communication plan. For example, one person used pictorials to create their weekly shopping list and a menu board to pick their meals each day.

Another staff member told us, “We make sure support plans are person centred and that people write them with us and then we share them with them. I am creating an easy read support plan for [person] as it will be more accessible for [them].

A person whose first language is English also speaks another language. The registered manager told us some staff were learning the second language, so they were also able to communicate with the person in this way.

The provider did not always act on feedback, when people or relatives shared this in response to complaints, concerns or suggestions about care, treatment and support.

The provider had a complaints and compliments policy, and a matrix of complaints and compliments was shared during the assessment. There was a suggestion box located at the entrance encouraging people to give feedback. A relative also told us, “I talk to the carers about any issues, they listen to me, give me information and will find things out”

The provider carried out an annual satisfaction survey for people and their relatives, and we were shown these during the assessment. Although the registered manager told us what action they had taken in relation to the findings, there was no formalised learning or action plans to evidence this.

As the service provides supported living for people there is no communal lounge, therefore, the provider does not hold specific family meetings. However, some relatives from the service are members of the provider’s national family forum and actively contribute. We were shown a video during the assessment that demonstrated family had recently taken part in a video on the importance of support planning.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Records we viewed showed people were supported to attend regular health appointments, including annual health checks, dentist, eye tests, diabetes checks and medicines reviews. A family member told us people were supported by staff who knew them well when attending health appointments. The relative said, [Relative’s] keyworker takes [person] to appointments and [staff member] will adjust hours to take [person] if necessary.

The provider had an on-call policy. A team leader told us, “There is a rota in place with a tier 1 and tier 2 person on-call locally.” The team leader also told us that there was a senior leader on-call and that the rota had been planned and shared for a year. We were shown a copy of this during the assessment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff recognised barriers people living with a disability may face and supported people to develop plans to breakdown any barriers that exist. For example, a staff member told us two people’s kitchens had been adapted so it was suitable for a person accessing this with a wheelchair. The staff member said, “This means [they] can now help with meal preparation.”

Although people were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life, advanced planning records were inconsistent.

At the time of our assessment no one was receiving end of life care. However, staff were aware of people’s resuscitation status.

People had an advanced planning care plan in place. However, we found these plans were not easy to follow and some information was duplication of other sections of the care plan and did not reflect a future planning need.

Further work was required to support people to develop effective advance planning records.