Prime Care at Home 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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 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.
People were happy with how their care was provided and told us it met their needs and it was easy to make changes should this be needed. One relative told us, “They are very responsive.”
Care plans were personalised, for example, one person’s care plan detailed what they liked left out on their side table, so they had important items close to hand. Other care plans contained important information about people’s work and family lives, their interests and hobbies as well as any religious beliefs important to the person.
 

The provider 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 and their relatives told us they appreciated having regular staff that knew them well and provided continuity. One relative described how this worked with their family member. They said, “The night sitters hand over the monitor to [family member’s spouse] at 7am and give them a handover.”
Feedback from healthcare professionals who had worked with staff from Prime Care at Home Limited found the staff team worked well to support any joint working. One healthcare professional told us, “From my observations, the team works collaboratively and demonstrates a person-centred approach. The staff have been approachable, proactive and keen to become involved in any way that may benefit the person. I have observed interactions that were respectful and supportive, and it is clear that they are committed to promoting the patient's wellbeing.”
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Staff were knowledgeable about people’s communication needs, and these were identified in their care plans. For example, one person’s care plan guided staff to give the person enough time to express themselves and that the person found it easier to give short responses in conversation.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.
People and relatives told us they were asked for their feedback and involved in their care and treatment. One relative told us, “[The manager] will interview [family member] and asks them for feedback on how it is going and what they think of the staff.” Records showed questionnaire type surveys, asking about the quality and safety of the service, had been sent out to people and their relatives. The responses received had been positive.
People and relatives told us they had not needed to make a complaint but told us they would feel able to do so if needed. Information on how to complain was included in the information booklet provided in people’s homes. If any issues had arisen, we saw these were investigated and people and relatives contacted with an apology and an explanation of what had gone wrong, along with the actions that would be taken to ensure the issue would not reoccur.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Records showed staff worked with other health and social care providers to obtain the care and support they needed. This included helping people to access GP appointment, referrals for adaptions to people’s homes, and signposting people to the local fire and rescue service to arrange home safety checks.
 

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.
Staff helped to reduce the impact of health inequalities on people. For example, they supported people to access telephone GP appointments when they were unable to attend in person, as well as helping people access the equipment and resources they needed.
 

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.
People’s care plans clearly identified people’s aims. For example, to continue to manage their own medicines administration or aspects of their own personal care. For other people, they had been supported to achieve social goals, such as a regular shopping trip and a lunch out.
No-one was receiving any end-of-life care at the time of our inspection. However, staff had been trained in this to be able to provide this care alongside other healthcare professionals if needed.