Social Care Solutions (Rothwell) Also known as Peartree Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

A staff member told us, “I genuinely love working here. We have an amazing staff team. People care about the people. Everyone works really well together as a team.” Another staff member told us, “I really enjoy working here. I’m happy. Everyone comes together and we welcome newcomers.”

The provider had an established vision and a clear set of values (CHOICE – Caring, Honest, One Team, Innovative, Courageous and Equal). These values were well known and understood by the staff team. The registered manager told us they had recently delivered a values and culture workshop at a regional meeting attended by team leaders from the service. They planned to repeat the workshop with the wider staff team at an upcoming team meeting, to explore whether the management team’s understanding of the service’s culture aligned with that of frontline staff.

The registered manager and team leaders told us the culture and strategic direction of the service had evolved since the new area manager took up their post. For example, regional meetings had been introduced, and these now included team leaders. This meant some staff feel more connected to, and involved in, the wider organisation.

Although there had been significant shortfalls in the quality, safety, and culture of some of the provider’s other service locally, key senior leaders in the operational structure above the area manager had not visited the service. Staff told us that senior leaders were available and contactable through teams and various other initiatives such as CEO Breakfast Club. However, we were concerned that despite the significant shortfalls in other local services, key senior leaders had not taken the opportunity to visit the service to meet the staff and people living at the service to assure themselves of the quality, safety, and culture.

During the assessment, we spoke with the registered manager and area manager about some of the language we observed being used in staff areas. We were concerned this appeared to have become normalised and could contribute to the development of a closed culture. The registered manager and area manager acknowledged this feedback and agreed to reflect on the concerns raised.

It was evident culture was important to local leaders and steps had been taken to improve this since the new area manager had joined the provider, however, more work was required to embed this culture with all staff.

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

At the time of the assessment there was a manager registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

We received positive feedback in relation to the leadership of the service. A staff member told us, “[registered manager] is a really good manager. Selfless. Will do anything for anybody. Has everyone’s best interests at heart all the time (staff, people and relatives). Other staff told us the registered manager was, “A wonderful manager, an all round great person, inspirational, and fantastic.” Staff commenting on the registered manager’s approach told us, they were “Available if required,” and “Always at the end of the phone if you need [them].” Feedback from people and relatives reflected this approach. A relative told us, “[Registered manager] is a great manager, approachable, and responsive to emails and telephone calls.”

We also received positive feedback in relation to team leaders being, “Available,” “Supportive,” and “Helpful”. Staff told us they knew who the area manager was for the first time and they were, “Approachable”. Other staff described the area manager as, “Friendly” and told us that having the area manager in post felt like the team were coming together more.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a raising concerns and whistleblowing policy. Staff told us there was a confidential reporting line and how they could access this but also told us they could go to a team leader, manager or area manager if they needed to raise any concerns. A staff member told us, “Managers are approachable” and “if there is a problem you can speak to them and they will help you.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were inducted to their job role and there were opportunities to enable them to develop and progress. For example, a staff member told us how they had taken on extra responsibilities to work towards becoming a team leader in the future. The registered manager had recently been supporting another local registration; this gave a team leader the opportunity to step into a deputy manager role on a temporary basis and develop their skills.

A staff member told us the provider was supportive and promoted a work/home life balance and shared an example that had supported them.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had systems and processes in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service, these included checks completed by support workers and team leaders, checks completed by the registered manager and those completed by the area manager. We saw evidence these checks were being regularly completed.

Although quality assurance checks were being regularly completed, they did not identify all of the areas for improvement we identified during this assessment. For example, although we found the business continuity plan had been updated in September 2025, there were references to a manager that no longer worked for the provider. We also found that although emergency fire evacuation drills were taking place, the provider had not carried these out in line with the frequency required in the fire risk assessment.

Prior to the commencement of the assessment, we were contacted by the registered manager who had identified that not all statutory notifications had been submitted to CQC for notifiable events. The registered manager took action to submit retrospective notifications.

Although the provider’s checks had identified some of the concerns we identified in relation to maintaining a safe environment, these had not escalated all the concerns to ensure these were addressed in timely manner, or implemented a risk assessment to mitigate risks.

The registered manager and area manager assured us action would be taken in relation to our findings and evidenced actions and points of escalation during our assessment.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

People and staff told us that although the service was a supported living service and there was no communal lounge or facilities they felt they were a community and neighbours. Relatives had started a gardening project and were working together and with people and staff to improve the shared gardens at the service.

The registered manager was a member of the skills for care registered manager forum and actively attended forums.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider shared their service improvement plan with us during the assessment. This did not include all of the improvements that were required, for example, those the provider was already aware of in relation to maintaining a safe environment. This meant we were not assured that the service focussed on continuous learning, innovation and improvement.

During our assessment we shared with the provider that we were concerned of the existence of a trolley being used to store medicines in an office within the supported living service for younger people with a learning disability. The registered manager explained a rationale for the use of the medicines trolley relating to regulating the temperatures of medicines. However, we were not assured by the practice that had been adopted by the provider. The registered manager told us during the assessment medicines would be moving to people’s individual flats once risk assessments had been completed.

We found the registered manager and area manager were receptive to our feedback and were assured they would continue to develop a culture of continuous improvement locally.