Peartreelifecare Limited

Date of assessment: 18 March to 1 April 2026. The service is a domiciliary care service providing personal care support to people living in their own homes. At the time of this assessment, 54 people were being supported with the regulated activity of personal care.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider did not always uphold these principles.
People told us they generally felt safe and supported by staff who knew them well, and we observed positive, respectful interactions. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of safeguarding and risk management, and appropriate systems were in place for infection prevention, medicines management and clinical oversight, including specialist training for complex needs. However, some systems required improvement, including the recording of safeguarding outcomes, environmental risk assessments and aspects of medicines administration.
Care was mostly effective and person-centred, with evidence of multi disciplinary working and people being supported to access healthcare. Staff understood people’s communication needs and consent was consistently sought. We received mixed feedback about how consistently people and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews, and records did not always reflect people’s aspirations or longer term planning. People described caring and compassionate staff who treated them with dignity and supported independence, although feedback highlighted inconsistencies in continuity of staff, communication about rota changes and responsiveness to feedback. Leaders were visible and approachable, and staff spoke positively about support and wellbeing. Governance systems were in place and leaders were responsive during the assessment, updating action plans and strengthening audit processes; however, oversight had not identified all the issues found during this inspection.
We found breaches of legal regulations in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found during this assessment.

Date of assessment: 18 March to 1 April 2026. The service is a supported living service providing personal care support to autistic people and people with a learning disability at the time of the assessment, 10 people were supported with the regulated activity of personal care. This was the first rated assessment for this service type.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found that the provider did not always uphold these principles.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind, compassionate and respectful. People and relatives told us staff were caring and responsive to people’s immediate needs, and we observed positive interactions where people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s communication needs and promoted independence, choice and control, although some people and relatives described inconsistencies in how this was achieved.

People were supported to feel safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, had completed relevant training and demonstrated good knowledge of how to recognise and respond to concerns. Systems were in place to manage risks, medicines and infection prevention and control. However, some records and audits were not consistently effective. For example, medicines practices required improvement, including checks of storage temperatures, recording of opening dates and clearer protocols for ‘as required’ (PRN) medication.

People’s homes were mainly clean and free from odours, and safety checks such as gas safety, legionella and electrical testing were in date. Water temperatures were monitored and recorded to ensure safe use. Environmental risks were identified and managed, and where issues were found, such as maintenance concerns and fire safety arrangements, action was taken during the assessment or plans were in place to address these. The provider demonstrated ongoing engagement with landlords to ensure repairs and improvements were completed. Environmental risk assessments were in place, although some required further detail to clearly evidence oversight.

People’s health needs were monitored and there was good involvement from external professionals, care plans and risk assessments did not always accurately reflect people’s needs, preferences or aspirations, nor consistently show meaningful involvement of people and their relatives. This was discussed during the assessment and leaders took steps to make improvements. Mental capacity and best interest documentation required strengthening, with some improvements seen during the assessment.

Leaders and staff were open and responsive to feedback and demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve. There was a positive culture, staff felt supported and spoke well of leadership, and an action plan was in place and updated to reflect findings from this assessment. However, governance systems, including audits and oversight, had not consistently identified shortfalls prior to the inspection and require further embedding to ensure sustained improvements.

We found breaches of legal regulations in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found during this assessment.