The Padle Healthcare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Relatives confirmed this, one told us, “Amazing care, I can’t find anything to fault it, I have met the carers a few times and they all have really got to know what his needs are and how best to address them in a way that he is happy with.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People told us how continuity of staff had helped to improve their confidence and become more comfortable receiving support. One relative said, “We seem to have been given the same carers, my [Relative] really likes this as they like to know who will be coming.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans contained information about each person’s communication needs and how to best meet them, in a format that they preferred. The service had published a service user guide. This contained key information about the service and further contact information for other agencies, for example, if someone wanted to make a complaint.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. For example, the registered manager regularly visited people directly to seek feedback. The service also carried out an annual feedback survey to gain formal feedback which was used to develop and improve the service. This meant people were involved in decisions about their care and were told what had changed as a result.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, the service monitored people’s weight and blood pressure regularly and raised any concerns with wider multidisciplinary teams to ensure people received the right support.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were in control of their care. The service listened to people’s views and planned their care to suit them. For example, where people needed to change their call times to fit with their routine, the service accommodated this promptly.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service asked people about planning for the future during the initial assessment process and revisited this regularly. However, at the time of our assessment, people had declined to provide further information in this area. Staff received training in end-of-life care and the provider had a policy in place.