Paradise Hope Ltd

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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider 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.

The registered manager put people and their relatives, where appropriate, at the centre of their care supporting the delivery of person centred care. A relative said, “They [staff] are very patient with [family member]. I recognise sometimes it is difficult for the carers with my [family member] personality and never got cross with them, they just adapt their approach. [Family member] has had continence issues on a few occasions and advise me quickly to contact the GP or offer to do it themselves. Overall they [staff]are very observant.”

Records and feedback from people and staff showed people were supported by the continuity of a regular staff team. Some people had several care workers involved in their care. However, all of them knew people well which contributed to consistent and personalised care provision.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences and how these were met. They shared detailed information about the people they supported including how they delivered their care in line with their preferences.

People’s care plans included information about their care and treatment needs. People and relatives reported being involved in discussions and decisions regarding care planning initially, and on an informal basis. However, some people and relatives said they were not always involved in formal reviews of their care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people to deliver joined up, flexible, choice based care to provide continuity to people. People and their relatives told us they received a reliable service from staff who understood their routines and needs and provided consistent, organised care.

Managers and staff communicated well with external professionals to ensure people experienced smooth transitions between different services. Records were kept of people’s current needs and history so in the event of a transfer to another setting people did not have to recount their circumstances again.

The service also had a well-managed referral process, and leaders engaged with external agencies, ensuring the service could respond to people’s need for care promptly, for example when people were discharged from hospital or they contacted the service directly for support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff told us they conversed with people according to their assessed individual communication needs. One staff member told us how they communicated with a person non-verbally and how this had been established over time to ensure their communication needs were fully met.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and were able to tell us how they ensured information was adapted when people had specific communication or accessibility requirements. Staff were able to explain how they applied the AIS in practice, including adapting communication methods, checking people’s understanding, and ensuring information was accessible and personalised. One person said, “I get any information by post as I don’t do e mail. It is in a format I can easily understand too.”

A data protection policy and procedure were in place and followed. Discussions with the registered manager and staff assured us they understood the importance of treating and protecting people’s confidential information securely and sensitively.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Staff involved people and their relatives in decisions about their care. People’s needs were fully assessed, and processes were in place to review them as required. Contemporaneous and detailed records were kept which allowed for the effective monitoring of people. Staff monitored and continually assessed people’s needs ensuring any change in presentation was promptly identified and acted upon.

The most recent people and relatives survey from December 2025 showed a 95% satisfaction rate with 41 of the 43 people who responded said they would recommend the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We did not identify any concerns relating to people’s ability to access the service. There was no evidence to suggest anyone was disadvantaged or unable to receive support in a timely or consistent way.

People received care in line with their assessed needs. Managers arranged care provision in a structured way to ensure staff could deliver support reliably and as planned. This meant people experienced equitable access to the service and staff responded appropriately when needs changed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

There were no concerns or differences identified of how people received or experienced the service. People were treated as individuals but, not less favourably from one another regardless of their personal characteristics, background or support needs. This meant people’s overall experience was equitable.

People received quality and consistent care which reflected their assessed needs. People and relatives raised no concerns of how they were supported. Their overall comments meant we were assured the service from day to day was inclusive and person centred. One person said, “I am happy with all of it [the service]. All the staff are good and treat me the same and I am very, very happy with them all!”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Whilst DNAR [Do Not Attempt Resuscitation and ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) records and hospital admission records were held there was limited information in respect of future planning and end of life wishes which had been discussed at, or throughout people’s care journey. One person said, “End of life care has not been discussed.”

The absence of future and end of life planning meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were being supported to make informed decisions about their future care or their wishes had been considered.

We discussed this with managers who were receptive to this shortfall and acknowledged people’s future planning should be considered and discussed with people. They said as part of forthcoming reviews of people’s care this area would now be discussed and recorded. To demonstrate their commitment to this they set about contacting people and relatives immediately following our site visit and provided 2 updated care files which included those people’s future planning wishes.