You are here

Prioritising People's Lives Ltd Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 January 2019

We inspected Prioritising People's Lives Ltd on 5 December 2018. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in to assist us.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older people, people with learning and physical disabilities and people who have mental health conditions.

Not everyone using Prioritising People's Lives Ltd receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 75 people who used the service and 63 people were in receipt of the regulated activity personal care.

At our last inspection in August 2017 we rated the service as requires improvement. This was because we found systems and processes for the administration of medicines was not always safe, risk assessments relating to health and safety for people were not always completed, care plans were not sufficiently detailed or updated in a timely manner and quality monitoring processes were ineffective. We asked the provider to make improvements. At this inspection in December 2018 we found the provider had acted and improvements had been made. We rated the service as good.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received safe care. Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicine safely and as prescribed. Staff had completed safeguarding training and they knew how to manage risks associated with people's care. Risk management plans provided staff with the information they needed to keep people as safe as possible.

Staff were recruited safely, and enough staff were employed to meet people's needs. People's care and support was provided by consistent workers at the times people expected for the correct length of time.

New staff received an induction when they started work at the service. People told us staff had the skills needed to support them effectively. Staff were supported with regular training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, decision specific mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions were not formally recorded. We pointed this out to the registered manager who told us they would take immediate action to address this. After the inspection the registered manager sent us some mental capacity assessments as confirmation that this work had commenced.

Some people received support with their food and nutrition. Where this was the case their nutritional needs and preferences were recorded in their care records. The service worked with external professionals to maintain and promote people's health and wellbeing.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the care they received and told us staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff helped people to maintain their independence. Policies and procedures were in place to arrange advocates for people should this be needed.

People told us they received personalised care based on their assessed needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they reflected people’s current support needs and preferences. Procedures were in place to investigate and respond to comp

Inspection areas



Updated 15 January 2019

The service was safe.

Staff could explain indicators of abuse and the action they would take to ensure people�s safety was maintained.

There were arrangements in place to ensure people received medicines in a safe way.

People told us the service they received was reliable and their care and support was provided by regular care staff. Good recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure suitable staff were recruited and people were safe



Updated 15 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff acted in the best interest of people they supported. However, MCA assessments and best interest decisions were not formally recorded.

Staff had undertaken induction and training including specialised training specific to a person. Staff were provided with regular supervisions, appraisals and ongoing support.

People received support with their food and nutrition. The registered manager and staff worked with other healthcare professionals to support people.



Updated 15 January 2019

The service was caring.

People told us they were well cared for and treated in a kind and compassionate way.

People were treated with respect and their independence, privacy and dignity were promoted.

Staff were knowledgeable about the support people required and about how they wanted their care to be provided.

People had access to advocacy services. This enabled others to speak up on their behalf.



Updated 15 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and care plans were produced identifying how to support people.

People received a flexible service to ensure their needs were met.

People and relatives were aware of how to make a complaint or raise a concern. They were confident their concerns would be dealt with effectively and in a timely way.



Updated 15 January 2019

The service was well led.

People received a reliable, well organised service and expressed satisfaction with the standard of their care.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and felt able to have open and transparent discussions with them through one-to-one meetings and staff meetings.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.