Archived: Priority Home Care

Updated 30 August 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 16 July 2018 and was announced. The inspection continued on 17 July 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice. This was so that we could be sure the registered manager was available when we visited and that consent could be sought from people to receive home visits from the inspector. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector on day one and two inspectors on day two.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the service had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We visited five people in their own homes and discussed the delivery of care with each of these people and four family members. We had telephone conversations with two health and social care professionals.

We met with the registered manager and the finance manager and care coordinator. We spoke with five staff.

We reviewed eight people’s care files, policies, risk assessments, complaints, quality audits and the 2017 quality survey results. We looked at four staff files, the recruitment process, staff meeting notes, training, supervision and appraisal records.

We asked the registered manager to send us information after the visit. This included policies and the training matrix. The registered manager agreed to submit this by Friday 20 July 2018 and did so.

Updated 30 August 2018

The inspection took place on 16 July and was announced. The inspection continued on 17 July 2018 and was announced.

Priority Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults.At the time of our inspection there were 30 people receiving personal care from the service. There was a central office base in Ferndown.

Not everyone using Priority Home Care received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Quality monitoring systems in place were not robust or effective. We found that detailed findings during auditing were not recorded nor were actions required for improvements listed or timescales added. The service did not record improvement actions. This meant that areas for development might be missed or forgotten.

The service did not maintain accurate, complete and contemporaneous records in respect to each person. Information was not always recorded and care records were not all up to date.

The service assessed people’s communication needs and these were being met, but they were not recorded.

People were supported to make decisions. However, best interest decision meetings had not taken place in line with the Mental capacity Act for one person.

People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and valued their right to live full lives. Staff described individual risks and the measures that were in place to mitigate them. Risks had been assessed and safety measures were reflected in people care and support plans.

People and staff told us that they felt the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding adults.

Medicines were managed safely, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular training as well as training specific to their roles for example, nutrition and dementia.

Staff received regular supervisions and annual appraisals which were carried out by the registered manager.

People were supported to eat and drink enough whilst maintaining a healthy diet. Food and fluid intake was recorded for those who required monitoring for this.

People were supported to access healthcare services. We were told that health professionals visit people in their homes and that on occasion’s staff would support people to arrange outpatient appointments.

People told us that staff were caring. We observed positive interactions between the staff and people. People said they felt comfortable with staff supporting them and that staff treated them in a dignified manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes, interests and communication needs although these were not clearly recorded in people’s plans. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well.

People had their care and support needs assessed before using the service and care packages reflected people’s needs in these.

Staff, people and families told us that they thought the management was good at Priority Home Care. We found that the management team promoted an open working environment and was flexible.

Staff were acknowledged by the registered manager for their hard work and commitment in their jobs. Staff told us this made them feel valued and that they were involved in developing the service.

This is the third consecutive time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.