Paulton Memorial Hospital

Updated 29 April 2026

We assessed Paulton Memorial Hospital in October 2025, in response to identified risk and timescale since previous inspection.

This assessment looked at the Assessment Service Group (ASG) community inpatients.

We inspected the community inpatient ward.

We rated this assessment as good.

The rating of this assessment has been combined with ratings from the previous assessment.

The rating of Paulton Memorial Hospital community inpatient ward is good.

Updated 23 September 2025

Paulton Memorial Hospital is home to two services.

A Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) and a community inpatient ward for adults.

On this inspection we just assessed the community inpatient ward.

We inspected community adult inpatients at Paulton Memorial Hospital on 9 October 2025.
Our inspection was a comprehensive inspection of all key questions and was in response to concerns raised relating to staffing and continence care.
HCRG Care Services Ltd provide services in the local community. Paulton Memorial Hospital offer 28 community inpatient step-up and step down beds to avoid admission to acute beds.
We found improvements since the last inspection in 2022 and is no longer in breach of regulation. The community inpatient service is now rated as good. Previously it was rated as requires improvement.
Staff now managed medication and emergency equipment safely.
Care plans now included patients’ needs and preferences.
Staff compliance with mandatory training levels had also increased.

Updated 6 October 2022

We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services provided by the hospital were available seven days a week, although the x-ray service (provided by another hospital) was not open at weekends.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• Services were tailored to meet the needs of individual people and were delivered in a way to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care. The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. Patients could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• The leadership, governance and culture were used to drive and improve the delivery of high-quality person-centred care. Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• The x-ray department was not open during the evening or at weekends. This was provided by another hospital and not within the service’s authority to change opening hours.
• There was a pain tool in use and pain levels were assessed. However, inconsistencies in documentation indicated that pain levels were not assessed or recorded in 50% of cases.