Integrity Care Agency 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider recorded any incidents, accidents or other events that effected people and the day-to-day operation of the service. No serious or significant events had occurred since the service began providing care. There was clear guidance for care staff about what to do to report events and other concerns and our feedback from staff confirmed that they understood what was expected of them.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider’s policy clearly outlined that an assessment of needs was required by the agency as a part of their consideration into whether they could provide care for the person. We looked at the assessments for people which had been completed in detail.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People using the service expressed through their relatives that they felt safe. Care staff told us “Yes in the first training (when starting work) and every refresher training we get reminded to attend.” and “Yes, we are trained on what to do if a person we support is at risk of harm or experiencing harm.”

The safeguarding policy and guidance for care staff was clear and outlined what action staff should take if concerns arose. If concerns did arise the provider worked with partner agencies to investigate and resolve concerns.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care staff told us they received training so that they were aware of risks and what to do if new potential risks emerged. They told us “Yes, I talk with the people I support about the risks they may face. I make sure we discuss how to manage those risks safely, so they understand what to look out for and how we can reduce any potential harm together.” and “Yes every time at the office and at the clients home.” Staff training records confirmed this.

The risk assessment policy was detailed and outlined that risks for each person must be reviewed regularly if events occurred for people that increased potential risks to them. We looked at each person’s risk assessments and found that these were taking place and considered people’s personal care needs and more general personal safety.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

No one using the service made any comments about not feeling safe being cared for in their own home environment. Comments that we received from care staff showed that they understood potential risk for people in their own homes. Risk assessments included consideration of people’s home environments to promote people’s safety, and safety of care staff.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Care staff were positive in their feedback about having the resources they needed to carry out their work and support people. They told us “There are sufficient staff numbers to support the clients” and “Yes (we have enough staff) all the time even in the holidays.”

The provider carried out pre-employment checks including Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS), employment history and pre-employment interviews. The provider also looked at people’s employment history and asked for applicants to clarify any gaps in their employment history, and this was recorded.

Staff were usually allocated to work with specific people which helped to keep consistency of care and all visits were recorded. A benefit of this was that it helped to build positive relationships between care staff and the people they were caring for. People commented on this in their feedback to us, adding that they are informed of changes when these are needed to the person coming to provide their care.

We were provided with records of staff training and prior qualifications. We were provided with certificates for all four care staff confirming that they had all achieved the care certificate in 2025. The training topics covered were wide ranging, for example, safeguarding, care planning, equality and diversity and duty of care among a range of other topics. Training records that we viewed showed the date of the training having been completed and the date that any update and refresher training should be undertaken.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider provided us with evidence of how they adhere to infection prevention and control guidelines and care staff confirmed they had suitable supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Care staff told us that they were provided with personal protective equipment for use when providing personal care. They said, “Yes I am provided with PPE all the time for each shift and we can request some in the office if we are running out” and “All the time (I have the equipment I need).”

Care staff were trained to understand and take action to minimise any risks of infection and to take action to report any arising concerns to the provider. Care staff were provided with suitable stocks of personal protective equipment to use when providing personal care.

The provider carried out infection control audits, and the outcome of these was recorded along with any action needed if required.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Care staff told us that “Yes , I am provided with training and guidance with supporting the service users” and “I have training for giving medication safely” and “I receive training every 6 to 12 months.”

We looked at the medication administration records (MARs) records for November 2025 to the end of January 2026 for the two people who required assistance to take their medicines. These were detailed, showing what part of the day, the medicine should be taken (For example, morning, lunchtime and later in the day), the medicine strength and dosage. No gaps were found on these records, which were reviewed by the provider to monitor their accuracy and completion.

Staff were assessed at least yearly to test their competence to handle and administers medicines and we were shown records that these assessments took place.