Your Priority Healthcare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support was at risk of not always achieving good outcomes or consistency.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the need for consent.

This service scored 58 (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 did not always use a range of assessment tools to ensure people’s needs were reflected and fully understood and regular records were not consistently kept monitoring people’s needs.

People’s needs had been assessed and reviewed however care plans did not demonstrate people’s needs had been fully assessed to cover all aspects of their needs. For example, people’s end of life care needs had not been assessed and for a person who experienced frequent infections, the provider had not assessed this need. Furthermore, notes had not been made each time the provider delivered care which meant a full understanding of a person’s potential changing needs were not available.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them in line with evidence-based good practice standards and legislation. For example, nationally recognised risk assessment tools were not consistently used to assess people’s needs and legislation, such as The Mental Capacity Act 2005, had not been adhered to. Furthermore, NICE guidance in relation to medicines had not been followed and for one person who was under the support of a Speech and Language Therapist, a copy of their recommendations had not been sought.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. This was because records were unclear and had not been kept sufficiently up to date so professionals, and staff, could not fully understand people’s needs and the care delivered. Furthermore, the recommendations of a health professional for one person had not been formally sought and recorded by the provider to ensure staff delivered consistently appropriate and safe care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, we saw evidence that the provider liaised with family members to ensure people remained well and received the health interventions they required.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

While the provider did not always record changes to care following other professionals input, we saw from care plans that people’s daily care needs were monitored and people told us the service was proactive in ensuring these were met. One person who provided feedback told us the provider was diligent in ensuring they understood what the person needed from the service and ensuring staff delivered it.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider had failed to adhere to The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and legal consent for the care and treatment delivered was not consistently in place. Despite relatives of people who used the service holding legal authority to make decisions, these had been made by those people that used the service without assessing whether they had the capacity to do so. In addition, the provider could not evidence that consent had been sought and received in relation to digital images uploaded to a social media platform.