Pear Tree Court

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (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 was exceptional at ensuring people remained at the centre of decisions about their care and support. Care was highly personalised and adapted to reflect people's preferences, aspirations and changing needs.

People were supported to live meaningful lives, maintain relationships, pursue interests and remain active in their local communities. One relative told us their loved one was “living their best life” since moving into the home.

Positive risk-taking was encouraged to promote independence and choice. Through personalised planning and robust risk assessments, several people were supported to access the community independently and achieve goals important to them. One relative described how their loved one’s life had improved through staff support, they said, “My relative received such good support since living in the home…I think this is marvellous and shows what good care can do.”

The provider placed a strong emphasis on community engagement and reducing social isolation. People regularly accessed local shops, cafés, places of worship, clubs and community groups. Staff also supported people to continue individual interests, including attending local art groups and maintaining lifelong hobbies.

The home had developed strong community links. Quarterly veterans’ brunches brought together veterans from the home, neighbouring care homes and the wider community. The home's accreditation with the Veterans Friendly Framework and quarterly veterans' brunches demonstrated its commitment to community engagement and inclusion.

People were encouraged to contribute to community projects and activities. For example, residents formed a gardening committee and worked with a local garden centre to grow fruit and vegetables, promoting purpose, wellbeing and social engagement.

Relatives consistently praised the café, describing it as a valuable community hub that enabled people to spend meaningful time with family and friends in a welcoming environment.

Professionals also recognised the service's person-centred approach. One social care professional told us, “The service demonstrates a person-centred approach and adapts support to meet individual needs.” They described how personalised support and risk management had enabled a person to maintain family contact and safely access the community, significantly improving their wellbeing and quality of life.

These examples demonstrated an exceptional commitment to person-centred care, enabling people to maintain meaningful relationships, pursue valued interests and live lives that reflected their wishes, goals and identities.

The provider understood people's diverse health and care needs and worked with partners to ensure care was joined-up, flexible and promoted continuity.

People's choices were respected and evidenced throughout the inspection. People and relatives told us staff supported them to access healthcare services when required and kept them involved in decisions about their care.

Staff worked collaboratively with health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated support. The registered manager provided examples of partnership working that had reduced barriers to care and improved outcomes for people. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and understood the importance of providing inclusive care tailored to individual needs.

The provider supplied accurate, up-to-date information in formats that met people's individual communication needs. Staff gave people the time and support they needed to understand information and make informed decisions.

Care records included clear guidance on people's preferred methods of communication and how best to support decision-making. Where required, people had access to easy-read information, pictorial aids and communication tools to help them understand information and express their views.

Relatives spoke positively about communication from staff and management and told us they were kept informed about their family member's wellbeing and any changes to their care.

The provider made it easy for people and relatives to share feedback, raise concerns and influence how the service was delivered.

Managers and staff knew people well and sought regular feedback through resident and relative meetings, surveys and day-to-day discussions. People and relatives told us they felt listened to and had opportunities to contribute their views.

A clear complaints process was in place. Although people and relatives told us they had not needed to make formal complaints, they were confident any concerns would be addressed promptly and appropriately.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care plans identified people's individual needs and any reasonable adjustments required to support equitable access. Appropriate equipment was available to support the safe delivery of care and maximise independence.

The environment was designed to support people living with dementia. Dementia-friendly signage, colour contrast and memory boxes helped people orientate themselves and maintain independence. People and relatives told us memory boxes also supported meaningful conversations and strengthened staff's understanding of people's lives and interests.

Leaders and staff considered the needs of people who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequalities and tailored support to improve outcomes.

Staff treated people as individuals and adapted care to reflect their needs, preferences and circumstances. The registered manager, staff and relatives described how personalised support had improved people's wellbeing, independence and overall quality of life since moving into the service.

People received exceptional support to plan for significant life events, including end-of-life care, enabling them to make informed decisions about their future.

The service was accredited with the Gold Standards Framework (GSF), an evidence-based programme that supports high-quality end of life care. Its principles were well embedded throughout the home. People's needs were regularly reviewed, with changes discussed promptly with GPs and other professionals. Records demonstrated timely action, including the prescribing of anticipatory medicines when required.

Staff received end-of-life training and supported people to discuss their wishes in a sensitive and person-centred way. Care plans included ReSPECT forms, treatment escalation plans and detailed information about people's preferences, including preferred place of care, funeral arrangements and spiritual wishes.

There was a strong focus on enabling people to remain at the home at the end of their lives where this was their preference. Staff worked closely with families, healthcare professionals and faith leaders to ensure people's wishes and cultural needs were respected.

Relatives were supported to spend meaningful time with their loved ones, and staff took great care to ensure personal wishes were honoured after death. Examples included dressing people in meaningful clothing and respecting personal requests such as favourite music or specific rituals.

Robust systems were in place to review hospital admissions and deaths, identify learning and share this across the service. The well-established GSF processes helped ensure people experienced compassionate, dignified end-of-life care that reflected their individual wishes and preferences.