Pear Tree Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We received positive feedback from people, relatives and staff about the leadership of the service. There was a clear governance system which provided oversight of risk and quality. The provider had a schedule of quality assurance systems to support them to review and assess the service delivery. This had largely been successful. The provider maintained oversight with regular provider visits and audits. Most identified shortfalls were addressed and acted upon.

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.

The registered manager and all the staff we spoke with demonstrated a commitment to providing person-centred, high-quality care. The staff we spoke with talked about the satisfaction they gained from making a positive difference to someone's life. Staff told us they worked well as a team for the benefit of the people who lived in the service. One staff member told us, “We always uphold resident privacy, make sure the environment is safe, respect the residents and their relatives. This is their home so we will make sure it feels like their home.”

The provider had processes to promote a positive culture at Pear Tree Court. For example, a ‘Resident of the day’ process aimed to improve the overall experience for people who lived in the home. It meant that people’s needs and wishes were reviewed in a holistic way and ensured continuous improvement. There was an employee scheme to praise good work and help staff feel valued. The provider demonstrated an open and transparent approach to their role. Where any safeguarding concerns were raised, or accidents occurred, relevant people were informed, in line with the duty of candour requirements, and CQC were notified of all significant events.

The registered manager told us they were well supported by other staff in the organisation, and they also sought support from external professionals. Staff were positive about the leadership of the service and told us it was well-led. Leaders had good oversight of the service and knew people and their relatives very well.

The provider had effective systems to support the leadership of the home. A team from the organisation carried out regular checks to ensure the safe running of the home. There were monthly managers meetings where managers offered support to each other and shared good practice. A business contingency plan was in place to help safeguard the home and reduce the impact on people in the event of disruption to the service.

Most staff spoke positively about the managers and confirmed they were approachable and listened to their views and personal requests. Staff were aware of the importance to speak up when they observed poor practices or when things went wrong. For example, 1 staff member told us they had identified an issue and raised it with the registered manager who “had taken action and did a good job.”

The provider had a whistleblowing policy. This provided staff with information to support them to make a disclosure should they have any concerns regarding the home, staff, management or abuse of people using the service. The provider ensured staff had the opportunity to speak up in a range of forums such as supervisions, team meetings and surveys.

Staff were overall positive about the inclusive culture at Pear Tree Court. Staff provided examples of how diversity was celebrated. These included, celebrating different religious holidays and practices and ensuring staff were able to pray at the times they wished to.

There were proactive processes in for staff equality, inclusion and wellbeing. Staff received training in equality and diversity, adjustments were made to support staff's personal well-being and individual circumstances.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at Pear Tree Court and felt supported and kept well informed by the leadership team to safely fulfil their role. Some staff told us how the service had improved since the registered manager had been in post. For example, 1 staff member said, “Things are much better than it was now [Registered manager] is here.” Another staff member said, “Overall I think it’s a really safe place to live in, if I knew someone who needed care, I would recommend them to live there.”

The provider had systems to monitor and evaluate the quality of the care and ensure compliance. Audits were used to identify areas of improvement. We found this had been largely successfully and compliance with the Regulations had been achieved. There was a clear staffing structure. The registered manager had responsibility of the day to day running of the service and told us they were well supported by the provider. Staff were supported to understand their roles and responsibilities through staff meetings and supervision.

Relatives told us the staff in the service worked well with them and kept them up to date. For example, 1 relative said, “They [staff] always notify me if they make any changes.” People confirmed that staff supported them to access other professionals when needed, such as doctors and dentists.

Leaders and staff told us they worked in partnership with other agencies to improve people’s outcomes. This included GP’s, speech and language therapists and specialist health consultants. Staff described a good working relationship with these partners. For example, 1 staff member said, “We always contact the care home team for support they are very good. GPs are always good, and we can always access 111. I had a good experience recently with someone from 111 as I had a resident who was quite poorly and deteriorating, he was end of life and they put everything in place for him and very supportive. The family were involved as well.”

Some partners confirmed the staff in the service worked well them. We saw feedback that stated, ‘The registered manager and maintenance manager fully engaged in the inspection process. The inspection process was seamless, the record keeping, knowledge of the building, professionalism and management process was beyond expectation.’ However, 1 partner told us it had been an “ongoing effort with continual reminders” for staff to follow guidance they had provided, but this was improving.” The partner also said it was “often a struggle to locate a carer despite prebooking visits.” This was attributed to a lack of staff.

Referrals were made to other professionals when needed. The registered manager had improved processes to ensure advice and guidance was followed by staff. The provider organised a weekly ward round from a GP who worked closely with the home. This was effective in supporting people’s medical needs. Partnerships with the local community benefitted people, for example with local schools, nurseries and churches.

Staff told us that there was a culture of learning and improvement at Pear Tree Court. Some staff told us about projects, training and initiatives they had been involved in which benefitted people. These included The Gold Standards Framework for end-of-life care, becoming a mental health first aider, an infection prevention and control champion and being supported to complete nursing training.

The provider promoted a culture of learning and development of staff to enhance people’s experiences and outcomes. Managers monitored accidents and incidents to identify and share possible learning. The provider had an action plan to make improvements based on feedback from a variety of sources and the findings from quality audits.