Integrity Care Agency Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There were systems and processes to support people to have the information that they needed to make informed decisions. People were encouraged to be involved as much as they could be in sharing their views and sharing their preferences about their care.

Care staff supported people to express their views using their preferred method of communication. This was recorded in people’s care records.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care staff liaised with other professionals to ensure that people's personal needs were identified and were then met. If people were living with medical conditions, for example diabetes, these were known about and were monitored.

People's care plans included information about other health and, if necessary, social care professionals involved with their support.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We viewed examples of communication that the provider had with people and their families, health and social care partners as well as from staff feedback. This demonstrated that the provider shared information, confidentially, with only those who had a right to know. They had also provided CQC with information securely when requested to do so, for example as a part of this assessment.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The care staff provided were, as far as possible, of the same cultural heritage and therefore very familiar with the cultural and religious expectations of the people they were supporting.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

No one who gave us feedback raised any concern about there being barriers to receiving the care and support that they needed. On the contrary, people felt respected and found the provider and care staff listened to them and responded to their wishes and needs without any undue delay.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider and care staff team put people first in the way the service cared about them.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

No one using the service was receiving end of life care or was subject to best interests’ decisions about their care and support. People were asked about their preferences for end-of-life care and if people decided to express a preference this was recorded on their care plan.