Peartreelifecare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.
This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
We received mixed feedback about people and relatives being meaningfully involved in assessing and reviewing care. Although care plans were reviewed every 6 or 12 months, records did not consistently show that people’s views, aspirations or preferences were captured or updated. We could not be assured that reviews were undertaken in a meaningful way with people and their families, and this was discussed with the registered manager during the assessment. Care plan audits had not identified these gaps.
This was acknowledged by the registered manager, who told us improvements would be made. However, staff demonstrated knowledge of people’s communication needs and assistive technology was in place where appropriate.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
The provider used recognised clinical tools, such as Waterlow (a risk assessments tool to help to identify individuals at risk of developing pressure ulcers), and care plans referred to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals, including GPs, Abbott nurses and specialist services. Training and competency records showed staff were supported to deliver complex care, including Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG), Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), suctioning and tracheostomy care, with competencies signed off by nurses.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
The provider worked with a range of professionals, including local authority teams, GPs and specialist nurses. Records showed evidence of multidisciplinary working, referrals and information sharing. Staff told us care plans and risk assessments contained sufficient information to support people safely, and inspectors observed effective handovers and daily communication systems.
External professionals provided positive feedback about joint working. Management told us learning from incidents and feedback was shared with staff through meetings, newsletters and electronic systems.
 

The provider mainly supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff mainly supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access healthcare services and received annual health checks where required. Records showed referrals to healthcare professionals and evidence of multidisciplinary meetings. Staff were able to recognise changes in people’s health and take appropriate action, including contacting family members and health services. One family member told us, “They told me to call 111. I was reluctant at first but thankfully I listened and my relative was admitted to hospital.”

Care plans lacked consistent, clear information about how people wished to be supported with specific health needs, such as oral care or personal routines. This meant guidance for staff was not always as detailed as it should have been. However, the service had received positive feedback from a person’s dentist indicating oral health care was being effectively supported in practice.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
The service had designated champions, including audit and speak up champions, and used health action plans to monitor outcomes. Staff were able to recognise changes in people’s wellbeing and inform families promptly. Audits, spot checks and governance systems were in place, and action plans were updated following inspection findings.
However, inspectors found that some audits had not identified areas of concern, such as gaps in care records or medicines management. The provider acknowledged this and had already taken steps to strengthen oversight, including appointing staff with specific responsibility for auditing.
People’s care records did not consistently reflect progression towards longer term goals or aspirations, particularly for people with a learning disability and autistic people.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and always respected their rights when delivering care and treatment.
People and relatives told us staff usually asked for consent before providing personal care, and inspectors observed staff seeking consent before entering rooms or administering medicines. Staff understood how to check DNACPR status, and Mental Capacity Act and consent policies were in place, with training provided.