Priceless Care Services Ltd

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

People felt safe when being cared for by staff. People and their relatives told us staff were helpful and supportive. People told us the staff did what they wanted and expressed positive views about the support staff gave them. Management reviews of people's care needs were completed to identify risks and plan for any changes. Staff involved people who used the service, and their relatives in this process. People using the service and their relatives were aware of the process to lodge complaints about the service if required. Staff undertook reviews of people's care needs to identify risk and plan for any changes. Staff involved people who used the service, and their relatives in this process. Systems were in place to monitor and mitigate risks. The service had sufficient staff to provide care calls at the booked times. People felt safe when being cared for by staff.

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.

People using the service reported that their opinions were considered. Policies and procedures supported the experiences of people using the service. People using the service had contact details of the on call system if required. Concerns raised by people using the service were investigated, and training was provided to address and improve areas of concern. We saw an example of a manager review of a complaint which was made about the service by a family member to social services. The manager reviewing the concern provided reasonable responses to each point raised.

Managers held regular staff meetings where learning from complaints and incidents was discussed and necessary improvements were implemented.

Systems were in place to record and learn from incidents and accidents.The service had policies and procedures in place for staff to follow if an incident occurred. The manager reviewed incidents and identified where improvements could be made to the service.

Staff mostly worked with people using the service, their relatives and carers, and other professionals to make sure people were cared for safely. People were offered choice about their care. However, not all people who used the service, or their relatives, were signposted to relevant third part professionals or community partners to support their ongoing care and support. For example, people were not routinely referred into continence services, or had adult social care teams included in care reviews.

Staff worked with other professionals to assess people using the service regularly. Staff confirmed they were kept up to date with people's changing care needs. The registered manager told us how they assess people referred to the service. For example, pre-assessments were completed to ensure the service could meet people's needs. Information was then provided to ensure staff had the right information to support the person safely.

The provider mostly worked with other external organisations to ensure people's care needs were being met. However, feedback from people using the service and their relatives showed this was not always sufficient to provide the level of care people wanted.

People told us they were involved in the assessment process in relation to their care needs, Staff at the service worked with them to identify their care needs. People confirmed that regular reviews of their care took place and any changes were accommodated. People using the service. This was a formal pre-assessment process when care packages came through as a referral. This process meant the provider completed a visit to people to meet people and their relatives as part of this visit.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People's experience of staff skills and timekeeping was not always positive. Some people and their relatives reported some staff did not present as knowledgeable about caring specifically for patients with dementia which they felt may be due to a lack of training on working with people living with dementia. However, all staff had completed in house dementia awareness training. Some people also said that staff calls were not always at a time which was convenient for the person using the service. However, overall people and relatives were complimentary about the staff and the care provided, reporting that staff spent the allocated time undertaking care tasks safely such as supporting with meals. One person said the staff are 'really lovely and kind and they work very hard'.

Staff told us there were enough staff to care safely for people using the service. All staff had completed mandatory training, for example, in safeguarding adults. Staff told us how they raised concerns about people's safety with managers to make sure correct processes were followed.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people were supported safely by well trained staff. The manager ensured all appropriate checks were completed to ensure suitable staff were recruited. This included checking all staff using the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to help the manager make safer recruitment choices.

People using the service confirmed staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons when undertaking personal care. Staff completed risk assessments relating to infection prevention and control (IPC) for people using the service to keep them safe. However, some people and their relatives raised concerns that personal care was not always sufficient to manage the risk of skin deterioration and the risk of infection. In 1 particular case staff had raised concerns with the manager, and a safeguarding referral had been made to review this person. Other people felt the personal care was to a good standard and any concerns about wounds or skin damage was escalated appropriately.

Staff confirmed they had received training in IPC and they had access to PPE. Staff told us they were aware of relevant polices and they followed procedures in place to keep people safe.

The service had processes in place. Staff had completed training in IPC as relevant to their roles. The manager undertook spot checks where they observed the staff working in people's homes to make sure care was appropriate. We reviewed a sample of 4 spot checks from March 2023 to February 2024 and saw staff were using PPE and keeping people safe from getting infections.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.