Your Priority Healthcare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. However, we saw examples of where other professionals had made recommendations to improve the service where action had not been taken by the provider. For example, a professional had recommended further information was required in relation to risk assessments, so staff had access to full information on required mitigating measures and risk levels. At this inspection, we found these shortfalls remained. We were assured, however, that staff understood the need to report safety concerns relating to the people who used the service and that action was taken in response. Staff told us the positive culture allowed them to openly and comfortably raise safety concerns.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

We saw examples of where the service had alerted other professionals to safety concerns helping to support people to remain safe. This included in relation to people’s health as well as any equipment in use. Where relatives were responsible for contacting health professionals, we saw staff alerted them to any concerns. One relative said, “If they [staff] are worried about [family member’s] condition, they let me know.” Other relatives agreed staff were effective at reporting concerns to them.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service had not identified any safeguarding concerns since our last inspection however systems were in place to manage this should they occur. This included an appropriate policy and training staff in safeguarding. The manager and staff demonstrated they understood safeguarding, types of abuse, potential symptoms, and how to report any concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, risk assessments did not always reflect this and required further improvement.

People told us safe care was delivered and that staff knew and mitigated any risks relating to their care. One person who used the service said, “I feel comfortable with them [staff], they know what they are doing. If they are worried about anything, like sore skin, they point it out to me and apply cream. They give me confidence. They check I have everything I need and if there is anything else they can do for me.” We were assured staff understood the risks to people and managed these in practice. However, associated risk assessments did not always contain enough detail or give a level of risk.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Records showed that the provider had assessed people’s homes to identify and manage any risks; this helped both the people who used the service, and staff, to remain safe. We saw that utility shut off points had been identified in case of emergency and where risks had been identified, actions had been taken to reduce these. Where equipment was in use, the provider had sought assurance they had been serviced to help keep people safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People told us they had confidence in the staff that supported them as they had the appropriate skills to care for them. One relative said, “I have no reason or evidence to doubt [staff’s] skills, they do an admirable job.” Staff had been safely recruited, received an induction that prepared them for their role, and training to ensure they had the appropriate skills. Staff told us they felt supported and records confirmed they had received formal support. One staff member said, “The manager is kind, supportive, and encouraging and is there for anyone whenever they need it.” Data showed there were enough appropriately deployed staff meaning people received care at the planned time.

Whilst the provider managed the risk of infection in practice, they had not assessed the infection risks to people as required by their own policy and regulations. However, the people who used the service told us staff were vigilant in using personal protective equipment when providing care and ensuring their environment was hygienic and clean.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Systems were in place to support the safe management and administration of medicines. For example, staff had received training and had their competency to administer medicines assessed. Medicines audits were completed each month and although these were somewhat limited in scope, they had been successful at ensuring no medicines errors had occurred.