CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Peartree House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, recruitment, medicines and infection-control arrangements. Staffing was generally sufficient, although concerns were raised about staffing in the annexe where care staff also cooked meals.
- Effective?
- Good
- Rehabilitation and care plans were based on professional guidance and included input from several specialists. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with nutrition, consent, mental capacity and healthcare needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People had caring relationships with staff and were involved in decisions about their care. Inspectors saw staff respecting people's privacy, dignity, independence, communication needs and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was adapted to people's needs, abilities and preferences, including their rehabilitation goals and communication needs. Activities and support with family and community contact were available, and complaints had been dealt with professionally.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, clear management arrangements and regular checks on care plans, medicines, infection control and other areas. People and families were involved through care reviews, meetings and informal gatherings.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised rehabilitation care, with some staffing and accessibility points to check.
This was an unannounced, routine comprehensive inspection on 1 and 2 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, family members, managers, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and part of a medicines round, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff records and quality checks.
The home supports people recovering from an acquired brain injury. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely and staffing was generally sufficient. Care was planned with input from several professional teams, and people had access to food, drink and healthcare.
People described caring relationships with staff. Inspectors found that people were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to maintain independence. Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and rehabilitation goals, and complaints were handled professionally.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home was meeting the relevant standards at the time of this inspection, but it does not mean that care was perfect or that conditions have stayed the same since 2018.
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home had staffing arrangements based on people's needs and carried out checks before staff started work. Inspectors found staffing was sufficient overall.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to support people and keep them safe.” from the report
Specialist rehabilitation
Care and rehabilitation were planned with input from nursing, therapy and other professional staff. Plans included goals, timescales and detailed guidance for daily support.
“People could be confident their care and treatment was planned to be in line with current standards and designed to achieve positive outcomes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and families described staff positively. Inspectors observed caring interactions and found that privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices were respected.
“All the interactions we saw between staff and people were positive and caring.” from the report
Progress was recorded
Care records tracked people's progress towards rehabilitation goals. People were involved in setting new goals when they achieved earlier ones.
“People's care records contained daily notes by members of the multi-disciplinary team which showed the progress people made towards their rehabilitation goals” from the report
Quality checks
The home had regular audits, meetings and an improvement plan. Inspectors found systems to monitor and improve the quality of care.
“Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of service people received.” from the report
Annexe staffing
needs fixingStaff raised concerns about staffing levels in the annexe because care staff were also responsible for cooking meals. The manager agreed to review this.
“Staff in one area of the home raised concerns about the staffing levels in the annexe where care staff were also responsible for cooking meals.” from the report
Access to the complaints process
minorThe complaints procedure was displayed and complaints had been dealt with satisfactorily. However, some people needed reminders about how to raise a complaint.
“although we saw that some people had to be reminded of how to do this.” from the report
Less accessible areas
minorSome parts of the original building were less spacious and accessible. The provider had plans to develop these areas, subject to listed-building planning consent.
“Areas of the original building were less spacious and accessible, but the provider had aspirations to develop some of those areas” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing in the annexe since the inspection, especially when staff are also cooking meals?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff available when people need help or when staff are absent?
- 03Which parts of the original building remain less spacious or accessible, and how would this affect my relative?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in setting and reviewing rehabilitation goals?
- 05How will my relative be supported to understand and use the complaints process?
This was a routine, unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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 Peartree House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 February 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.