Peartreelifecare Limited

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

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service.
 

This service scored 61 (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.
The shared culture was not consistently experienced by people and their relatives, limiting opportunities for people and relatives to influence service direction. Several relatives were unclear about leadership roles or how to engage with managers. One relative said, “I wait on their response all the time. They very rarely reply to me.”

Management meetings were not consistently held, with a gap identified between December 2025 and February 2026. This reduced assurance that leaders regularly reviewed performance and reinforced shared priorities across the service. While leaders were responsive during the assessment and updated action plans in line with inspection findings, this culture of learning and reflection was not yet fully embedded at the time of this assessment.
 

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders showed commitment to the service and staff spoke positively about their approachability and support. One staff member said, “The management team are approachable, and I feel we are supported”

However, leadership oversight was not always effective. Although audits and spot checks were completed, they did not consistently identify areas of concern. This was discussed during this assessment, and the Registered Manager (RM )told us of a new staff role being implemented purely for audits. Improvements were made to medicines audit forms during this assessment. People and relatives gave mixed feedback about how concerns were handled, with some describing dismissive responses when raising issues about care continuity and staffing changes. This showed leadership capability was not yet consistent across the service.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
Staff gave clear examples of speaking up and demonstrated confidence in doing so. Whistleblowing policies were in place and a speak up champion had been appointed. Team meeting minutes encouraged staff to raise concerns with managers, and leaders reported responding to issues raised.
 

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.
The provider promoted equality, diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Staff completed equality and diversity training and had access to wellbeing support, including a 24 hour employee assistance programme. Flexible working arrangements were available where required.
Staff spoke positively about their inductions, training and ongoing support, and leaders demonstrated a commitment to creating an inclusive working environment.
 

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.

Governance systems were in place but were not always effective. Audits, supervisions and spot checks had been completed, yet these did not identify several issues found during the assessment, including medicines storage, recording practices and care documentation gaps.
Leaders recognised these areas for improvement and had begun to strengthen governance arrangements, including recruiting a staff member dedicated to auditing and revising audit tools. However, these improvements were recent and not yet embedded, limiting assurance that governance arrangements were sustainable.
 

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.
The provider worked constructively with a range of partners, including local authority professionals, GPs and specialist nurses. We received positive feedback from external professionals, including community and specialist nursing teams.
This partnership working supported continuity of care and access to specialist input. Action plans showed engagement with commissioners and evidence that feedback from partners was being considered to improve practice.
 

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.
Learning was not always translated into sustained improvement. Audits did not consistently identify issues, and lessons learned were not always clearly embedded into practice. A new electronic care system had been introduced during this assessment, however, as this was not yet fully implemented, its capacity to support and drive improvement was limited. The new system needed to be fully embedded to function effectively and drive improvements.