We carried out a review of the data available to us about Peartreelifecare Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Peartreelifecare Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
The provider was also the registered manager at the time of our inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We were unable to rate the agency as there was not sufficient information available to us to fully assess how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led the service was.
Staff knew how to keep people safe and protect them from any harm or abuse. There were policies and procedures in place, which ensured that the staff had the guidance and support they needed to ensure that they protected people from any harm or poor practice.
People had care plans and risk assessments in place, which ensured that they received the support they had asked for in a safe way. At the time of the inspection there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs; more staff were to be recruited as and when more people requested the service.
There were systems in place to ensure that people were protected from being cared for by unsuitable staff. Staff received training and support, which ensured that they had the skills and knowledge to provide the care that was needed.
There were systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provider was aware of their responsibilities in relation to ensuring people gave their consent to care.
The provider was closely involved in the day to day running of the agency and continually monitored the quality of the service provided. Staff were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to and acted upon. There was a process in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns.