Peartree Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance and fit and proper persons employed. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. Following this assessment, the rating remains as Good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At this assessment, the service had taken effective actions to address concerns found at the previous assessment. For example, improvements had been made with how lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff were encouraged by leaders to speak up when things went wrong, and clear processes supported the reporting of incidents, near misses and safety events. The service listened to concerns, investigated and reported events, and used this information to identify learning and embed improvements in practice. Significant events were recorded, investigated, analysed and reviewed, and the provider had taken steps to strengthen how learning was shared consistently across the team. For example, the provider had introduced dedicated meetings to discuss significant events, with 2 meetings planned each week to support reflection and shared learning. The service had improved its adherence to its own complaints policy. For example, the service had incorporated the investigation process within its complaint’s tracker, and by doing this, the service had streamlined its complaint management process more effectively.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service had made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who now received effective support, supervision and development to provide safe care and treatment that met people’s individual needs. Staff worked together effectively to deliver care in line with people’s requirements. The provider had strengthened its recruitment arrangements and record keeping supporting safe staffing; for example, the service had implemented a more formal system to ensure recruitment records, including references, health declarations, appraisals and explanations for gaps in employment, were obtained prior to employment. Staff had received appraisals, and these were scheduled for 6-monthly review. The service had reviewed the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) policy dated 18 September 2025, which stated non-clinical staff were not required to have a DBS check; instead, the provider had implemented a risk assessment process for these staff members and was able to evidence the appropriate staff members had such completed risk assessments. The service also had arrangements to manage risks associated with lone working; lone working risk assessments had been completed for all staff where lone working applied.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.