Your Priority Healthcare 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant systems were not consistently in place to ensure people’s needs were always met.

This service scored 54 (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 worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s feedback demonstrated this. However, care plans did not reflect people’s complete needs and failed to ensure staff had all the information they needed to ensure individualised care was always delivered. For example, for one person’s care plan we saw that it lacked person-centred detail and was simply a list of tasks. Whilst we acknowledge staff knew people’s needs well, providers are required to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure people receive appropriate and person-centred care that meets their needs and reflects their preferences.

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.

We saw that people received care from the same group of staff and that those staff had received training in equality and diversity. Training records also showed that staff had received training to help them understand the needs of the people they were supporting such as people living with dementia, dysphagia (swallowing problems) and diabetes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, the provider had assessed people’s communication needs and ensured people received information on the service prior to receiving care.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Whilst the provider requested people’s feedback on a formal basis, some feedback received by CQC showed that people did not feel consistently at ease raising concerns. One person told us how they felt their concerns had been dismissed by the provider when they raised them. Despite people telling us they had raised concerns with the provider, the provider told us they had received no complaints. We could therefore not be assured that the provider had the appropriate systems and processes in place to manage people’s concerns and complaints.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. This was because call times were not always consistent. People told us this and records confirmed this. People did, however, have access to information on the service in the form of a service user guide so people knew how to use the service most effectively.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Whilst the service promoted equality for those that used it and staff had been trained in equality and diversity, inconsistent call times meant the service had failed to fully understand the needs and rights of the people who used the service.

People were not 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. None of the care plans we viewed contained care plans to support people with major life changes including when they were coming to the end of their life. This was despite one person requiring palliative care.