This inspection took place on 16 & 19 October 2015 and was unannounced. Peartree House provides accommodation and care for up to 46 people specialising in the rehabilitation of people with an acquired brain injury. At the time of our inspection there were 36 people living at the home. Accommodation is provided in either the main building or in three smaller buildings where people were supported to be more independent. The Centre provides both long-term care and active rehabilitation, and aims to enable clients to maximise their skills and abilities.
The home has a registered manager who has been registered since December 2011. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Risk assessments had been completed for the environment and safety checks were conducted regularly of gas and electrical equipment. People had individualised evacuation plans in their care folders. However, an emergency grab bag was not available at reception, with people’s individualised evacuation plans. This meant that in an emergency they could not be accessed easily and presented a potential risk to people.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Peartree house to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff told us they received regular supervision and support where they could discuss their training and development needs, but records showed they had not recently been completed.
People felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. People were supported to receive their medicines safely from suitably trained staff.
Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. Decisions were taken in the best interests of people.
People received varied and nutritious meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and offered alternatives if people did not want the menu choice of the day. However, people did not always have their fluid intakes recorded appropriately.
People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes.
People and their families (where appropriate) were involved in assessing, planning and agreeing the care and support they received. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. Their privacy and dignity was protected.
Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.
People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a wide range of activities tailored to their specific interests. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.
People liked living at the home and felt it was well-led. There was an open and transparent culture within the home. There were appropriate management arrangements in place and staff told us they were encouraged to talk to the manager about any concerns. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.