CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Pearl Peak House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough safely recruited staff. Medicines, infection control and incident follow-up were managed safely, although one high falls risk assessment was incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food, drinks and healthcare support, and staff had training. However, not all mental capacity assessments and best interest records had been completed when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people treated with dignity, respect and compassion, with their choices and independence supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were involved in care planning, supported to keep in touch with family and offered activities. Some care plans and end of life plans lacked specific personal detail.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The culture was open and supportive, but leadership checks did not reliably identify incomplete or inaccurate records. The provider was asked to review its governance processes.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Pearl Peak House rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care but record keeping and management checks required improvement.
This was the home’s first unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors visited on 30 June and 5 July 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found the home was safe, effective, caring and responsive. Staff were kind, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, people had food choices and healthcare support, and activities and family visits were encouraged.
The main weakness was management of records. Some care plans, risk assessments, capacity assessments and best interest decisions were incomplete, inaccurate or lacked important detail. Audits had not always found these problems.
The overall rating was Good, but well-led was rated Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection, so there was no previous rating to compare with.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind, compassionate and respectful interactions.
“We observed staff interactions with people which showed they were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity, and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received medicines on time from trained staff, and regular audits were carried out.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines on time from trained and competent staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient, and staff responded promptly to requests for help.
“During the inspection we saw staff were attentive to people and responded promptly to requests for support.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were offered activities and supported to maintain relationships with friends and family. Feedback about activities was positive.
“People were offered a variety of activities to join in with during the day.” from the report
Incomplete or inaccurate records
needs fixingSome care plans, risk assessments and best interest decisions did not contain the information staff needed. The home’s audits had not always identified these issues.
“We found records were not always completed or accurate.” from the report
Missing risk assessment
needs fixingOne person at high risk of falls did not have a completed falls risk assessment. The report says staff knew people's risks, but the missing record was a weakness.
“One person was at high risk of falls and their falls risk assessment was not complete.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingNot all capacity assessments had been completed, and two best interest decisions lacked relevant information. The provider was recommended to review these records.
“We made a recommendation the provider review their mental capacity assessments and best interests for individuals with restricted practices in place.” from the report
End of life plans lacked detail
needs fixingThe end of life care plans reviewed were generic and did not always describe people's specific needs. Staff were working to make them more personal.
“End of life care plans we reviewed were generic and did not always identify specific details.” from the report
- 01How have you improved your audits so they identify incomplete or inaccurate care plans and risk assessments?
- 02How do you make sure every person has a completed falls risk assessment when one is needed?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions checked and kept up to date?
- 04How have you made end of life care plans more specific and personal to each resident?
- 05What changes were made after the inspection, and how do you check that those changes are working?
This was the first unannounced comprehensive inspection of the home, covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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.
Every inspection of Pearl Peak House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2023
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 2023.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.