Integrity Healthcare Solutions 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. However, we found some aspects of the service in relation to staff recruitment processes were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety in relation to recruitment practices. We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to staffing.

This service scored 72 (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 culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Staff told us they recorded any incidents and accidents in their daily record books and reported these to the manager. The registered manager used these to identify any areas of good practice that were shared with the team.

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 with external professionals to ensure any referrals received were reviewed and assessed in a timely manner. One healthcare professional said, “In the past one year, all the feedback from our client referrals have been very positive.”

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. People using the service and their families told us they felt safe and at ease in the presence of care workers. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and children and understood their responsibilities in reporting their concerns to the registered manager. One care worker said, “Safeguarding is protecting people from harm. When I’m doing personal care, I always look out for any bruises or unexplained marks. I report everything.”

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. People told us, “They help with her washing, helping her go to the toilet. They are not rough with her.” Risk assessments were in place for people, however we found some aspects of these had not been fully completed. For example, a ‘service user risk assessment’ was completed, however this contained limited information about areas that had been identified as ‘medium’ risk. We fed this back to the registered manager who responded promptly and submitted updated risk assessments which were more detailed and relevant to the people they had been written for. Staff were aware of the risk to people and the areas they needed help with. One care worker said, “[Person] has a lever to help her get in and out of bed but we supervise her to move safely.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental risk assessments were completed, these included details about any environmental risk such as lighting, flooring, windows, smoke alarms and steps needed to keep the environment as safe as possible.

The provider did not always make sure that staff recruitment processes were robust enough in ensuring only people who had been suitably vetted were recruited. Although we received positive feedback from people and staff themselves regarding areas around staffing, including competency and training, we found the provider did not follow good practice in relation to staff recruitment. The providers recruitment processes were not robust. For example, staff files were incomplete and did not contain evidence such as application forms, evidence of interview and signed contracts. Induction checklists for new starters were not completed and some staff files only contained one verbal reference with no evidence that these had been verified. There was limited assurance that staff had been recruited and inducted properly. Other checks, such as right to work, identity and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) were in place. DBS provide information including details about previous convictions and cautions held on the Police database. Training and supervision records showed staff had access to appropriate training and supervision opportunities.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading. The provider completed risk assessments in relation to infection control and cleanliness. People told us care workers wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when supporting them and staff confirmed they had access to adequate supplies of PPE which were stored in the office. One care worker said, “We have access to PPE, we come to the office to pick it up.”

No one was receiving support with medicines at the time of this assessment, however we were assured that the provider had the appropriate process and training in place should the need arise. People had been assessed and consented to not receiving medicines support.