Peartreelifecare Limited

Updated 10 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

This inspection took place on 10 and 13 July and was announced.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure that senior staff would be at the office and information would be made available for us to inspect.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information that we held about the service such as notifications. These detail events which happened at the service that the provider is required to tell us about. We also contacted the Local Authority for any information they held on the service.

We spoke with five people who used the service, two relatives of people that used the service, three care workers, the administrator, the care plan coordinator, and the registered manager who was also the provider. We reviewed six peoples’ care records to ensure they were reflective of their needs, six staff files, and other documents relating to the management of the service.

Updated 10 August 2018

This inspection took place on 10 and 13 July 2018 and was announced.

Peartree1 Ltd provides domiciliary care services. It provides support and personal care to a range of people living in their own houses in the community. At the time of our inspection 23 people were receiving personal care from the service.

Risk assessments in place did not always contain sufficient detail to make them specific to each person. Generic information was used, which was not always relevant to the person, and did not always document the equipment or procedures in place for people’s care.

People told us they felt safe, and staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse. All the staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by their manager.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet people's current needs. People told us that staff mostly arrived on time, and calls were not missed.

The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. References and security checks were carried out as required.

Staff attended induction training where they completed mandatory training courses and were able to shadow more experienced staff providing care to people. All new staff took part in the Care Certificate which teaches fundamental standards within care. Ongoing training was offered to staff and mandatory areas of training were kept up to date.

Staff supported people with the administration of medicines, and were trained to do so. The people we spoke with were happy with the support they received in taking their medicine.

Staff were trained in infection control, and told us they had the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely. We saw that staff had reported any concerns they had around infection control within people’s homes to management, who had then acted appropriately.

Staff were well supported by the manager and senior team, and had one to one meet ups, spot checks and observations.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. Consent forms were signed and kept within people’s files.

People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with their nutrition and hydration. People were supported to go to health appointments when necessary.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. People told us they were happy with the way that staff spoke to them, and provided their care in a respectful and dignified manner.

People were involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported. Care planning was personalised and included people’s likes and dislikes, so that staff understood their needs fully. People told us they felt in control of their care and were listened to by staff.

The service had a complaints procedure in place to ensure that people and their families were able to provide feedback about their care and to help the service make improvements where required.

The people we spoke with knew how to use it.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action was needed.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure quality of care across all levels. Communication was open and honest, and improvements were highlighted and introduced as required.