CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pear Tree Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and there were enough staff to keep people safe. Some risk assessments were not detailed enough during the inspection, but the provider later sent evidence that they had been improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff supported people’s health, diet and healthcare needs, but staff had not yet received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were friendly and caring. Inspectors saw people treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and supported to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people’s preferences, communication methods and routines. Activities were provided, although the provider agreed to review outside activities for one person after their day centre closed.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider and deputy manager ran the home, but there was no registered manager. Inspectors found that audits, meetings and feedback systems were in place, but leadership was not fully compliant with the registration requirement.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home Requires Improvement in well-led because there was no registered manager.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with two people living in the home, three relatives, the provider and two staff members. They also observed care and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People appeared safe and well supported. Staff knew people’s needs, treated them kindly, supported their choices and provided personalised care and activities.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager in post, although this is a condition of registration. Inspectors also found some smaller gaps in risk assessments, staff training and accessible information. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in June 2016.
Enough staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff. Inspectors also saw staffing levels that allowed people to receive individual support when needed.
“We observed staffing levels were high enough to keep people safe and provide individual support when required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated warmly and respectfully. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence.
“We observed people being treated with friendliness and respect at all times by staff members.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people’s needs, preferences and routines. Staff supported activities such as shopping, volunteering, trips out and household tasks.
“Staff members knew people's likes and dislikes and how important routines were to them.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored, given and recorded properly. Staff were trained and assessed as competent before administering medicines, and daily checks were carried out.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The provider said an application would be made, but the report says this is a legal requirement and a condition of registration.
“There was no registered manager at the service, which is a condition of registration.” from the report
Some risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingSome assessments did not give staff full information about how to reduce risks. The provider later sent evidence that these had been given enough detail.
“However, some risk assessments were not detailed.” from the report
Training gaps
needs fixingStaff had not yet received training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Further information and training about people’s specific health conditions was also needed.
“Staff had not yet received training in MCA and DoLS.” from the report
Accessible information
minorThe home used some easy-read information, but large-print information was not available. The provider said this would be addressed.
“Some documents were available to people such as pictures in a complaints procedure, which used easy read symbols. However, large print was not available.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed and registered, and who is responsible for oversight until then?
- 02Have all risk assessments been reviewed so they give staff clear instructions about reducing each person’s risks?
- 03Have all staff completed Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training?
- 04What training and written guidance do staff now have about each person’s specific health conditions?
- 05What additional outside activities are now available for the person whose day centre closed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home’s premises and care, covering all five key questions and including observations, discussions and records checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Pear Tree Grove
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.