Peartreelifecare Limited

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 supported living service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 57 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
People’s care plans contained some information about preferences and backgrounds, such as favourite meals and activities. However, records were not always accurate or personalised. We found examples where care plans included incorrect information or generic wording, including personalised emergency evacuation plans that referred to “he/she”. Although improvements were made during the assessment, this needed to be fully embedded.
Feedback from people and relatives was mixed. Some relatives told us staff knew people well and were kind, but others said they were not listened to when sharing important information about triggers or support needs. One relative told us staff did not act on guidance they had provided, and no review meetings had taken place for several months. This meant care was not always responsive to what mattered to people.
 

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 were mostly supported by a consistent group of staff, and staff told us they knew people well and understood their communication needs. The provider worked with a range of professionals, including GPs, local authorities and specialist nurses. Records showed referrals were made when people’s health needs changed, and relatives gave examples of staff identifying changes and seeking advice.
However, continuity was not always reliable. Some relatives said they were not informed when care staff were late or when rotas changed, and others described frustration with staff turnover.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider met the Accessible Information Standard and had information available in different formats, including pictorial and easy read materials. Advocacy information was available, care plans were not currently in easy read, this was discussed during this assessment, and the RM told us of plans going forward in developing easy read care plans where appropriate.
However, relatives and people told us communication was inconsistent. Some relatives relied on informal messaging, which they felt focused on negative updates and did not provide balanced information. This meant people were not always supported with clear, timely and accessible information.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.
There was a complaints policy in place, and people and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns. Records showed complaints and compliments had been received, and quality assurance visits had taken place.
Involvement was not consistent. Several relatives told us they had not been involved in care plan reviews for long periods, or that meetings had taken place without follow-up. Some people were not aware of surveys available in their homes. Best interest decisions and care plan reviews did not always evidence meaningful involvement of people or their families. This limited opportunities for people to influence how their care was delivered.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
An on-call system was in place for out-of-hours support, and staff told us this was responded to promptly. People were supported to access healthcare services, attend appointments and maintain contact with family and community services, including places of worship.
However, feedback about access was mixed. Some relatives said telephone calls were not always answered promptly, and they relied on messaging instead. While this did not prevent people receiving care, it showed access arrangements were not always reliable for everyone.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.
Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights and demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported with their identity and to maintain relationships that mattered to them. We observed staff using people’s preferred pronouns, and care plans reflected this.
However, we were not fully assured the provider consistently monitored and evaluated outcomes for people with a learning disability and autistic people. Care plans did not always focus on agreed outcomes or progression towards longer-term aspirations. This limited the provider’s ability to demonstrate equitable outcomes for everyone.
 

People were not always 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.
Future planning, including end of life care, was discussed at the point of assessment. Health action plans were in place, and people were supported to attend annual health checks and multidisciplinary reviews.

However, records showed future planning was not always reviewed or documented if people chose not to engage at the time. Care plans did not consistently reflect people’s longer-term goals or aspirations. The registered manager acknowledged this during the assessment and told us steps would be taken to improve how future planning was recorded and reviewed.