Iris Care Services Limited

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 71 (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.

People’s care plans were personalised based on their assessed needs. These included information on their physical, mental health and sensory needs as well as information about their families and culture. The registered manager said, “I always ask about cultural/religious preferences.”

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.

People received consistent care from a small group of staff. They confirmed staff knew them well. A relative said, “[Person] has a particular person they like and if someone else is coming in they let me know.”

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

The provider considered people's communication needs as part of their initial assessment and ongoing reviews. At the time of our inspection, they were not supporting anyone who needed information in alternative formats.

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 provider had a complaints procedure. There had not been any formal complaints, but people were made aware of the process, and the registered manager told us most issues tended to be resolved informally. They told us, “We have 1-1 relationships with friends and family, things tend to get sorted…We have the service user guide which explains what they can do. They do the formal complaint to me, depending on the level, within 3 days to 10 days turnaround to reply. Most are usually over the phone to solve.”

People confirmed they knew what to do if they needed to raise a complaint.

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

People received appropriate care and support at a time which suited their individual needs.

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.

People’s individual needs were considered to ensure equity in their experience of care.

The service had an equality and diversity policy, and the registered manager understood people’s human rights and their right to equality.

People were not always 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.

People’s care plans did not include information about their wishes at the end of their life. Staff were not trained in end-of-life care. However, at the time of our inspection the service was not supporting anyone on end-of-life care. Following our visit, the registered manager told us staff were assigned end of life training to complete.