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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good . At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.
 

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. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There were systems in place to support oversight, including daily handovers, action plans and a range of audits; however, these had not identified all the issues found during this assessment. For example, recent audits of medicines, and care plans had not identified concerns raised by inspectors.

People and relatives gave mixed feedback about communication and responsiveness. Some said managers were approachable and responsive by email, while others described delays in responses and frustration with staff turnover and rota changes not being communicated. Although leaders responded to feedback during the assessment and updated action plans, the provider needed to further strengthen how its vision, values and learning culture were consistently understood and experienced by people, relatives and staff.

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 were visible and generally described as approachable and supportive by staff, with one staff member telling us, “The management team are approachable, and I feel we are supported.” People and relatives were mostly positive about knowing who to contact if they had concerns. However, some relatives reported dismissive responses when raising issues, and mixed experiences of communication from managers.
While leaders demonstrated compassion and commitment, oversight of quality required improvement. Audits and spot checks had not consistently identified shortfalls, and improvements were made after issues were highlighted during the assessment. A new audit role had recently been introduced, although these systems needed time to become fully embedded and effective. This showed leaders were willing to act, but systems were not yet consistently effective in supporting inclusive, high quality leadership across the service.
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.
Staff demonstrated confidence in raising concerns and gave appropriate examples of doing so. A whistleblowing policy was in place and included relevant external contacts, and a speak up champion was active at the time of the assessment. Team meeting minutes showed that staff were encouraged to raise concerns with management.
People and relatives also knew how to raise issues and who to contact. Although some concerns were not always resolved to their satisfaction, there was clear evidence that staff felt safe to speak up and that leaders took concerns seriously. Overall, the provider promoted an open culture where feedback and concerns could be 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 had completed equality, diversity and human rights training and demonstrated an understanding of people’s rights, including under the Mental Capacity Act. Flexible working arrangements were available, and staff spoke positively about their inductions, training and ongoing support.
Staff had access to wellbeing resources, including 24 hour support services, and the provider was a recognised mindful employer. These arrangements helped staff feel valued and supported, contributing to a more inclusive working environment. Overall, the provider supported workforce equality and inclusion well.

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.

The provider had governance systems in place, including audits, action plans, supervisions and contingency planning. However, these systems were not always effective in identifying risks and areas for improvement. For example, audits had not identified issues such as incomplete care records and medicines‑related concerns found during the inspection.

Leaders acknowledged these areas for improvement and took action during this assessment, including strengthening audit processes and dedicating staff time to quality monitoring. A business continuity plan was in place, and there was evidence of engagement with local authority monitoring. While these actions demonstrated commitment to sustainability, governance arrangements required further embedding to ensure risks were consistently identified and managed in a timely way.

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 in partnership with a range of external professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing, including GPs, specialist nurses and local authority teams. We received positive feedback from external professionals, and records showed evidence of multi disciplinary working and information sharing.
People and relatives described examples of coordinated care, such as shadowing arrangements when new staff were introduced and joint working during transitions. These partnerships supported continuity of care and helped people access the support they needed. Overall, the provider demonstrated effective engagement with partners and the wider community.
 

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.

The provider showed an understanding of the importance of learning and improvement, but this was not yet consistently embedded. Leaders recognised that the existing electronic care system was not fit for purpose due to service growth.
Although systems were in place to learn from incidents and feedback, we found that lessons were not always clearly reflected in practice or audit outcomes. Leaders responded positively to feedback and were open about the need to improve, but further work was needed to ensure learning led to sustained improvements and innovation across the service.