A&R Priority Healthcare Head Office

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

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement. We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The provider planned services in coordination with social care providers when delivering care in residential care homes. There were processes for safe medicine prescribing, information sharing and ensuring information about patients was reviewed prior to delivering care. However, there was a risk posed by not storing patients’ medical histories. The medical histories were not stored on the record system and may not be available when needed if access to the GP NHS GP record systems was unavailable.. We saw identity checks for home visits were not in place. Risk assessment and infection control auditing was not sufficient for the services provided. We identified a breach of regulation relating to good governance.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a lack of systems to identify learning outcomes such as periodic risk assessment, incident reporting and safety auditing. The provider did not use their incident reporting system to identify areas of learning and ensure where changes were made, they were embedded and reviewed to enable continuous improvement. For example, in Spring 2024 the provider had received feedback from a local GP practice about information sharing concerns. The provider told us they had changed the way they planned and delivered services and improved engagement with local GPs as a result. But they did not record the events, their learning or changes to practice in order to revisit their learning.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which information was managed and monitored as part of the delivery of care. They made sure there was continuity of care, through effective obtaining and sharing of information.

However, the provider did not undertake identity checks on patients during home visits. In addition,, the provider did not have a system to ensure that any patients who did not consent to information being shared with their registered GP practice regarding care being delivered during a home visit, that they would risk assess whether the care was safe to be continued.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The service had systems to ensure people’s rights were protected and shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service worked with people, their care workers and their relatives to understand and plan their needs. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There was insufficient risk assessment of the services delivered relating to lone working, transporting of equipment and traveling to locations to deliver care, among others relevant to the service design.

The team consisted of two qualified, skilled and experienced GPs, who supported each other, peer reviewed their work and sought development opportunities where necessary.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not have a service specific infection control policy, nor had they risk assessed specific infection control risks pertinent to their service. There was no system of infection control audit or monitoring.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. However, some medicines were prescribed to patients without identity checks taking place. This posed the risk that medicines may be misused.