Civic Care 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 incidents and concerns in real time through care management systems, and staff explained how they would escalate to the manager and, where appropriate, to the local authority. Managers checked in regularly with people and families, including during hospital admissions, and used that feedback to monitor safety and satisfaction.

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 worked closely with people, their relatives, and relevant health and social care partners to ensure care was coordinated and safe. All care packages were commissioned through direct payments, meaning Civic Care liaised directly with local authority teams and healthcare professionals to ensure that planned support met assessed needs.

The service demonstrated a joined-up approach by maintaining clear communication with GPs, district nurses, and local authority professionals to monitor risks and coordinate timely interventions.

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 told us they felt safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training, understood different types of abuse, and described clear reporting lines to the manager and local authority when needed. Staff also referenced their handbook and policies to check processes when unsure. Family feedback confirmed managers were available, supportive, and responsive.

The provider also supported people through complex safeguarding situations. For instance, when a person experienced harassment, Civic Care acted immediately by contacting the safeguarding team and the police. Staff supported the individual to update their contact information and block unwanted calls and provided ongoing emotional and practical support. A professional told us “Civic Care carers can identify safeguarding concerns in an efficient and timely manner and promptly inform the relevant teams to protect clients.”

Staff described safeguarding as a core responsibility and could explain what to look for and how to act. Families told us they felt safe and that staff responded quickly to changing needs.

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.

Risk assessments were individualised and took into account people’s communication needs, mobility levels, religious and cultural preferences, and personal routines. These assessments were completed in partnership with people and their families wherever possible, ensuring that risks were understood and managed in ways that respected each person’s wishes. Where changes in people’s health were identified, carers acted promptly to escalate concerns. For example, when a person developed skin problems following a recent change in medication, staff reported this without delay. The provider contacted the GP, who reviewed the treatment plan, while a district nurse supported ongoing management.

Staff actively supported people to retain their independence and manage day-to-day risks safely. For example, carers worked with people to plan shopping, break larger tasks into manageable steps, and encourage individuals to do the parts they preferred to complete themselves. Families and professionals confirmed that this collaborative approach helped people feel more in control of their care while remaining safe at home.

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

Civic Care carried out environmental risk assessments in people’s homes to identify and reduce potential hazards. These assessments considered the layout of the home, access routes, equipment needs, and individual risks associated with each person’s care. Where risks were identified, the provider worked with people, families, and commissioners to agree safe solutions and put control measures in place.

Staff were supported to deliver safe care in people’s homes through clear moving and handling guidance, infection prevention and control measures, and hygiene routines tailored to individual circumstances.

Regular reviews of care plans ensured that environmental risks were kept up to date, particularly when people’s needs changed or new equipment was introduced

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.

The provider followed safe recruitment practices, including enhanced background checks, references, and right-to-work verification, to ensure only suitable carers were employed. Staff reported receiving a structured 5-day induction, which included mandatory training and shadowing experienced colleagues before working independently. Quarterly supervisions were carried out to review performance, discuss training needs, and maintain high-quality standards.

The provider assembled core care teams around each person to promote familiarity and continuity of care. A reserve team was in place to provide safe cover during periods of sickness or annual leave, ensuring people were never left without support. Visits were tailored to people’s daily routines; for example, care calls were planned around prayer times, mealtimes, and other personal commitments. Where people requested female carers for intimate care, this was accommodated to ensure dignity and cultural sensitivity.

People and families said carers were on time, reliable, and flexible, including condensing hours when these better suited needs. Rotas were built around people’s preferences, and the service kept reserve cover to maintain continuity.

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.

There were current Infection Prevention and Control policies (IPC) in place. The provider delivered induction and refresher training and ensured Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supply and correct use. Staff followed hand-hygiene expectations and cleaning protocols relevant to a home-care setting. Leaders carried out frequent regular IPC audits, risk assessments, and contingency plans to maintain continuity during staff illness. Staff told us PPE was available, and they were confident in IPC practice. Relatives said the staff always washed their hands before carrying out their caring duties and they had no concerns about infection control practices.

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 packages typically involved prompting only in line with assessed needs. Medicines administration charts were kept and signed for these prompts. Staff described how they prompted safely, checked understanding, and escalated to GPs or district nurses if concerns arose. Where medicines formed part of people’s support, the care management system provided task prompts and notes. It also enabled follow-up so that changes and outcomes were visible to leaders. Staff showed understanding of what each person’s medicines was for. We reviewed medicine records, and we found no gaps in Medicines administration record charts. Regular weekly audits were also carried out by the service manager.