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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 told us the service met their needs in an individualised and thoughtful manner as their planned care was discussed with them on a regular basis. All the people who provided us with feedback agreed they felt involved in the care delivered. One relative said, “There are 3 monthly reviews, either on the phone or I attend… these reviews are important to me. I am reassured [family member] is looked after well.” The records we viewed confirmed regular reviews of people’s care was undertaken. We saw that where people requested amendments, for example, a change of visit time, these were met.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs (Accessible Information Standard - AIS). We saw examples of how the service sought to meet people’s communication needs in line with the AIS. For example, people’s communication needs had been assessed, and we saw from records that information was available in other formats as required. Furthermore, relatives told us how staff often used wipe boards to help people organise their lives and for reminders.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs (Accessible Information Standard - AIS). We saw examples of how the service sought to meet people’s communication needs in line with the AIS. For example, people’s communication needs had been assessed, and we saw from records that information was available in other formats as required. Furthermore, relatives told us how staff often used wipe boards to help people organise their lives and for reminders.

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 told us the service provided informal and formal ways to provide feedback on the service they received. We saw that 3-monthly reviews took place on people’s care and that questionnaires were distributed to seek people’s feedback. However, people told us they felt able and comfortable to provide feedback at any time. One relative told us about a concern they had raised and how this was managed. They said, “[The manager] was on the case immediately and it never happened again. I was very happy with the outcome.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us, and data demonstrated, people received care at the time they had requested and at the time planned, and that staff stayed for the allocated amount of time. One relative said, “Staff arrive on time and write detailed reports on the [electronic care planning system] when they have finished their visit, it is very reassuring.” Another relative told us they had contacted the out of office service a number of times due to their family member needing assistance. They said, “On call is most efficient, they always respond straightaway.”

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. People told us they received person-centred care that met their needs. We saw that staff had received training in topics that affected the group of people they supported, and people told us they had the associated skills. This included training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

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. Whilst no one was receiving end of life care at the time of this inspection, staff had received training in it in the event this was needed. Furthermore, from the care plans we viewed, we saw that people’s wishes for the future were considered and planned for.