You are here

Archived: Pineapple Place Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 December 2017

This inspection took place on 1 August 2017 and was announced. Pineapple Place was first registered as a supported living service with CQC in August 2016. This was its first comprehensive inspection. Pineapple Place is registered to deliver personal care to people who live in their own apartments. This service provides care and support to people living in ‘supported living’ setting[s], so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of our inspection 13 people were receiving personal care from the service.

Pineapple Place has not had a registered manager in post since June 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection the acting manager was applying to CQC to become the registered manager. Since that time the acting manager has left the employment of the provider and another manager is in the process of applying to become registered with CQC as the Registered Manager.

People told us that they felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff were aware of the need to keep people safe and understood their responsibilities to report allegations or suspicions of poor practice. Assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risks to people and guidance was available for staff to follow to minimise those risks. Safe recruitment practices were in place. Medicines had not always been given as prescribed and there were unclear instructions for staff who supported people to use medicated skin creams. The systems in place to ensure medicines were managed safely were not effective.

Staff were provided with training to keep their knowledge and skills current. Staff told us that they had received a planned induction when they commenced working. All the staff demonstrated the need to gain people’s consent to care and support before providing assistance. People were provided with a good choice of food and the majority of people were supported to access relevant healthcare professionals when needed.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well and who they described as kind and compassionate. People expressed how they wanted their care to be delivered. People’s decisions and choices were respected by staff. People told us that they were treated with dignity and had their privacy respected.

People had been involved in the development of their care plans.. People told us they felt their views were taken into consideration and their choices accommodated where possible. People told us that they felt enabled to raise concerns and complaints and were confident that these would be investigated and acted upon.

People described the service as well-led and felt confident with the support they received. However staff did not feel that leadership was clear and did not feel as supported as they would like. Our inspection identified that the leadership was not effective. The systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service had not identified issues affecting people’s safety or the impact on the quality of the service. Subsequently they had not driven forward improvements or ensured that risks were mitigated appropriately.

We found that the assessment and the monitoring of the service did not meet the required standards and so the provider is in breach of Regulation 17, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People could not be sure they received all their medicines as directed by their prescriber.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.

People were kept safe by staff who understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and protecting people from abuse.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was not effective.

Staff did not receive appropriate support and supervision.

People did not all access health professionals as needed, and action had not been taken when changes in health needs arose.

People�s rights were upheld in relation to the Mental Capacity Act, and consent was sought by staff before they delivered care.

People had a range of nutritious and pleasant food.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills they needed.



Updated 2 December 2017

The service was caring.

People said that all the staff were kind and caring.

People were encouraged to be involved in their care and support and told us they felt listened to.

People said staff treated them with dignity and respect.



Updated 2 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People said that staff knew their needs well and respected their choices.

People had access to a complaints process that they felt responded to their needs.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

The monitoring and quality assurance process in place were not being used effectively to ensure the safety and on going improvement of the service.

Leadership of the service was not clear and staff did not feel sufficiently well supported.