Patience Healthcare (Aapna) Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The registered manager and staff team worked well together towards shared goals of person-centred, respectful care. They had built positive working relationships with a range of partners. Governance and management systems were generally proportionate to what was needed, although the registered manager needed to continue to improve aspects of auditing to continually improve the service. They were responsive to our feedback.

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.

Staff felt part of the service and were able to describe the goals of the organisation. They prioritised safety and acted inclusively to work in the interests of the people they supported. The registered manager and nominated individual were clear in the direction of staff. One staff member said, “They listen to us and support us very well.” External partners had a good amount of confidence in the service. They felt staff worked well together to achieve the goals of the service, and that these were well understood by staff at all levels. One told us, “[Deputy manager] and the team went above and beyond expectations of their roles and saw good progress with the person I am working with.” Another said, “The management were helpful and responsive in terms of reviews.”

The nominated individual and registered manager had put in a significant amount of work to turn the culture around. They worked with partners to openly address the areas of concern and to make swift improvements. They had followed a clear action plan and, whilst there were still areas to improve, the service was performing well and understood what those areas were.

The registered manager and deputy manager had skill sets and personalities that complement one another. They understood each other’s strengths, and those of colleagues, and delegated well. Staff felt included in how the service was run and recognised the improvements in the culture. The leadership team had demonstrated genuine care and compassion for the wellbeing of staff during the civil unrest earlier in the year. External partners felt the leadership and other staff demonstrated a united approach to any challenges that arose, and worked well to meet people’s needs.

There were staff meetings and regular updates to staff. There was a suggestions box and staff were encouraged to contribute. Staff mental health wellbeing had recently been an area of focus for leadership, with additional awareness sessions put on.

All staff we spoke with felt able to raise concerns and felt their comments would be listened to and dealt with appropriately. Partners had experienced an open and helpful approach from the provider when requesting any updates regarding concerns or incidents. The culture was open and the registered manager welcomed suggestions.

The provider had up to date safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place. There were a range of means to capture staff feedback, such as staff meetings, supervisions and spot checks.

Staff with a range of backgrounds and needs were well supported by a leadership team who understood the benefits and challenges of supporting a demographic of people for whom English was not their first language.

Processes were in place to ensure recruitment practices were fair. More could be made of the language skills of some staff and others, to ensure the service was able to provide as accessible a range of information as possible. For instance, the welcome leaflet was in a range of languages but some core information around complaints and safety were not. The registered manager agreed to review this.

The registered manager and nominated individual were open about the journey they had been on in the past year to improve the service. They were able to demonstrate a range of these improvements. Staff felt included and well supported on this journey. There was scope now to further upskill and challenge staff to take on greater delegated responsibilities. Partners were able to access the information they needed and found the service to be helpful and open. Recent formal quality assurance visits had been positive.

The staff team at all levels worked hard. The move to electronic record keeping needed all staff to work together for it to be successful and they had achieved this. Auditing still required improvement. Whilst the registered manager and deputy had a good grasp on any immediate and emerging issues, they were not yet in a routine of analysing across incidents for trends and patterns. The registered manager recognised this and committed to implementing a more rigorous auditing approach.

People’s experience of the provider’s partnership working was limited, as they largely were not party to it. They raised no concerns.

Staff and people who used the service often shared community links. The registered manager attended provider forums and understood the importance of the service not becoming a closed culture. They were responsive to suggestions when signposted to other sources of good practice and innovation.

Partners described a positive and collaborative approach from the provider.

Policies were informed by good practice. Where they could be improved, the registered manager was responsive to feedback.

Staff has embraced the move to electronic records and had been supported by leadership to do this on a phased basis. The service did at times employ students and there was scope to explore links with academic partners nearby. Partners told us the leadership was open to suggestions and advice, and would work with them to try new approaches that may bring about better outcomes for people.

The provider had in place clear policies and procedures in place, as well as means for staff to raise suggestions and good practice. Medicines management had improved with the implementation of electronic records, and errors reduced. The provider’s use of electronic records more generally made for efficient use of time and storage, and that people would receive a consistent approach to care.