CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pear Tree Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff and good systems for risk management, infection control and medicines, but some prescribed creams were initially accessible in bedrooms.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management arrangements, regular checks and action when concerns were identified. The process for obtaining feedback from relatives needed improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Pear Tree Lane was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but identified issues with cream storage and relatives' feedback.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 November 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They visited outside standard working hours, met all 13 residents, spoke with four relatives and seven staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, support for people's choices, infection control, and systems for managing risks and learning from incidents. People could receive visitors without restrictions.
There were some shortfalls. Prescribed creams were found unsecured in bedrooms, although staff moved them to secure storage immediately. The relatives' survey could not show feedback for this home alone. The provider was given two recommendations to improve these areas.
The overall rating remains Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in June 2018. This inspection did not reassess the other three key questions.
Risk management
Risks were assessed and managed so people could take part in activities they enjoyed. Emergency plans and health condition plans were in place.
“Safety risks were assessed and managed in a way that enabled people to participate in the activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Safe staffing
Staffing rotas showed that agreed safe staffing levels were consistently met. Permanent staff had also been safely recruited.
“Staff rotas showed that agreed safe staffing levels were consistently met and staffing numbers increased at times to enable people to safely access the community in line with their care plans.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found safe infection prevention and control practices, including effective use of protective equipment.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff followed safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Open leadership
The home had a positive and open culture. Managers used audits, care reviews and incident learning to improve care.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Choice and visitors
People were supported to make choices in the least restrictive way possible. Visitors could come without restrictions.
“People were able to receive visitors without restrictions in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Prescribed cream storage
needs fixingSome prescribed creams were accessible in bedrooms. Staff moved them to secure storage immediately, and the provider was asked to improve staff compliance.
“However, we found some prescribed creams were accessible in people's bedrooms.” from the report
Relatives' feedback
minorThe relatives' survey covered several services, so its results could not be separated to show feedback about this home. The provider was asked to review the process.
“Feedback from the relatives' survey could not be broken down to the specific location of Pear Tree Lane as it covered feedback from a number of the provider's other registered services.” from the report
Agency staff use
minorSome relatives were concerned about increased use of agency staff. Managers said this had increased because of staff sickness, while inspectors found safe staffing levels were met.
“Staffing has changed, it does not help having a lot of agency staff, there is more than there has ever been” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all prescribed creams are stored securely?
- 02How will you collect and report feedback specifically about this home rather than combining it with other services?
- 03How many agency staff are currently being used, and how do you make sure they know each person's care plan and preferences?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing and improving person-centred care?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not assessed and their previous ratings carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2023 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Pear Tree Lane was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some medicine signatures were missed and staff turnover put pressure on existing staff.
This was an unannounced first ratings inspection. The report says the visit took place on 26 April 2018, although other sections give the date as 27 April 2018. One inspector spoke with one person, one visitor, the manager and four staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff files, medicine records, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable risks. There were enough staff on the day, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were generally managed safely and the home was clean. People had care plans, trained staff, support with food and health, and equipment suited to their needs.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were supported to communicate, make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Their personal preferences, cultural and religious needs, complaints and end of life wishes were considered.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report did identify missed signatures for some topical creams. It also noted high staff turnover, use of agency staff and some pressure on existing staff while new staff were being supported.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicating calmly and respectfully. Staff understood people's personalities, communication methods and signs that they needed help.
“We saw staff engaged positively with people during the inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's abilities, health needs, preferences and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“We saw people's care plans included assessments and plans for how to meet individual needs.” from the report
Activities and interests
People were supported to follow interests inside and outside the home. Inspectors saw activities including gardening, art and craft, sensory activities and hand massage.
“We saw people were involved in a number of different activities such as art and craft, using a sensory room, gardening and hand massage.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager reviewed accidents and incidents and updated care plans or practice when changes were needed.
“This meant the registered manager had a system in place to learn from accidents and incidents.” from the report
Staff turnover
needs fixingThere had been a high turnover of staff and vacancies were being covered with agency staff. Existing staff said supporting new staff had created extra pressure.
“The registered manager told us they had a high turnover in staff and this had meant existing staff had spent lots of time ensuring people's needs were understood by new staff.” from the report
Medicine checks did not spot the problem
needs fixingDaily checks by senior staff had not identified the missed medicine signatures. The manager said the checking system would be reviewed.
“During the inspection we found these checks had not identified missed signatures on MAR charts.” from the report
- 01Have the missed signatures for topical creams stopped, and how are medicine records checked now?
- 02How many permanent staff and agency staff are currently working at the home?
- 03How do you make sure new and agency staff understand each person's communication methods, risks and care plan?
- 04What action has been taken to reduce staff turnover and the pressure on existing staff?
- 05How are families involved in regular reviews of care plans, goals and end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced first ratings inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the report gives conflicting dates of 26 and 27 April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 2018 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 Lane
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 March 2017.
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 Wolverhampton
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.