- Homecare service
Peartreelifecare Limited
Assessment report published 4 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of the service were mixed, with many positive relationships described alongside concerns about consistency, communication and responsiveness in some areas.
Several people and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and knew people well. People said they were generally treated with respect and supported with their daily needs. One relative told us, “They are kind to [relative]. I see it,” while another said, “The majority of staff are caring and kind.” People told us staff helped them with personal care, medicines and keeping their homes clean. One person said, “Staff help, they never forget,” and another told us, “I’ve got everything I need.”
People were supported to maintain relationships that mattered to them. Relatives described regular visits and time spent together, and people told us they enjoyed going out with staff. Activities included shopping, cinema trips, discos, meals out and annual barbeques. People were also supported to attend places of worship, with one person told us, “I can attend church every Sunday.”
However, some people and relatives raised concerns about feeling unsafe or unsupported at times. One person told us, “I don’t feel safe there… there is no privacy,” while a relative said “They don’t listen to me. I have tried guiding them.” Some relatives felt they were not consistently involved in care planning or kept informed about appointments or incidents. Others described feeling frustrated by a lack of meaningful daytime support or engagement.
Overall, while many people experienced caring staff and positive relationships, inconsistencies in communication, involvement and responsiveness affected how safe and supported some people and their families felt using the service.