Archived: Priority Plus Care Agency

We gave the manager short notice of our inspection. On the day of our inspection there were 16 people who used the service. We talked with the manager and looked in detail at the care records for three people. We spoke on the telephone to three people who used the service, two members of staff and two relatives. We looked at three staff files.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with three people who used the service who all told us that they felt safe. One relative we spoke with told us they had no concerns regarding their family member's safety. We saw that the service had systems in place to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. The manager had a good understanding of issues around safeguarding and their role in protecting people. There were policies and procedures in place to make sure that unsafe practice would be identified and people would be protected.

Is the service effective?

People received the care and support they required to meet their needs and maintain their health and welfare. We saw that people who received care and support from the agency had a care record that included assessments of their individual needs and risks. The care plan had been developed to meet those assessed needs. The records we viewed had been reviewed on a regular basis, or earlier if required. Prior to people receiving care and support, we saw that information regarding the person's health needs was obtained from other professionals, such as social workers. This meant that people could feel confident that the service could meet their individual and personal care needs. We viewed records which showed us training and development was provided to staff to enable them to deliver support safely and to an appropriate standard. We spoke with three people who used the service who told us staff were knowledgeable about their individual care needs and they were confident in staff abilities when support was being given.

Is the service caring?

All the people we spoke with were happy with the care and support provided by the agency. People told us that the service engaged with them to ensure that their needs and wishes were met. Relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities to respect people's privacy and dignity. We observed that the manager knew the care and support needs of people we discussed very well. One person told us, 'They try to help me all the time, they've been very polite.'

Is the service responsive?

We spoke with the manager who told us they involved other professionals in people's care when their needs changed. This was so their care could continue to be provided safely and appropriately.

All the people we spoke with told us they felt that the service listened to them. Comments we received included, "The manager is quick to sort things out, they care about the clients they are always visiting them.' They also told us that if they needed to change any area of their agreed care and support plan, this was accommodated by the service. This showed us that the service was responsive to people's needs.

and personal care needs. We viewed records which showed us training and development was provided to staff to enable them to deliver support safely and to an appropriate standard. We spoke with three people who used the service who told us staff were knowledgeable about their individual care needs and they were confident in staff abilities when support was being given.

Is the service well led?

The manager was aware of their responsibilities in meeting the essential standards of quality and safety. We saw the service had systems in place to ensure people were regularly consulted about their views and ideas on how the service should be run. This was done by means of satisfaction surveys with people and individual meetings. We saw quality assurance systems were in place. The people we spoke with told us that the management were approachable and they had received a copy of the complaints procedure prior to joining the service. Staff felt well supported and records we reviewed confirmed that staff were appropriately trained and supported to carry out their role safely. The documentation we viewed, together with people's comments, showed us that the service was well led.

Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. One person that we spoke with told us, "I have the same group of staff and they understand my needs very well".

Safeguarding procedures were in place so that staff would recognise and report any allegations of abuse to protect people from the risk of harm. One relative told us told us, "I have no concerns at all, I am extremely happy with the standard of care".

Recruitment processes were in place which gave people who used the service, some assurances that only suitable staff had been employed.

People were cared for by staff who were supported, supervised and trained to deliver care to an appropriate standard. One person told us, "The staff are very friendly and helpful".

Systems were in place for the on-going monitoring of the quality of service but a lack of analysis meant that the provider was not identifying themes and trends in order to learn and improve from findings.