Iris Care Services Limited

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 69 (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 process for managing incidents. Staff were to inform the registered manager who would complete an incident report and investigate. We saw there was a template for this which included a section for action taken, learning and sharing with external agencies as required. A staff member said, “There is an incident form in the office, so we call the office and explain everything.”

People and relatives confirmed no incidents had occurred since they had been using the service. Staff told us the registered manager kept them updated.

The provider was not able to give us examples of working with other services. People who used the service were privately funded. The registered manager said, “We worked with hospital discharge team, and they contact us if they have any clients we can support. We had more people in the past, but they have come and gone.”

People using the service were able to approach other services themselves, if required. A person said, “I’ve got all that covered.”

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 had a safeguarding policy. At the time of our visit there had been no safeguarding concerns. The registered manager was able to describe the safeguarding process. They said, “I would inform the duty team at the local area. They might say to send an email. I would co-operate with their investigation and notify CQC.”

Staff received training in safeguarding and people who used the service confirmed they felt safe and well cared for.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks.

People’s care plans included information of their needs and how to support them. Risk assessments were either not completed or contained very little information which contradicted with what was in the care plans and had not been updated since the original assessment. However, people’s needs were low and the information in their care plans was sufficient for staff to provide care safely. The registered manager was aware if they had more complex care packages they would need more robust risk assessments.

The provider did not have an electronic call visit monitoring system.. This meant there were no alerts if staff did not turn up or were late. However, this had never happened and both service users were able to contact the office if the staff did not arrive and there were plans to implement electronic monitoring.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The registered manager had not assessed people’s homes for risks in relation to the environment. We would expect to see consideration of potential risks staff may need to be aware of such as trip hazards and action to take in the event of fire. There was very brief information in people’s care plans such as whether they had pets or were a smoker.

Staff we spoke with told us the areas they worked in felt safe. A staff member said, “My clients’ houses are quite safe to work in. The environments are ok. Everything is fine.” However, the lack of detailed documentation meant we were not assured environmental risks were identified and mitigated. Following our visit, the registered manager told us they had visited people’s homes and created the environment risk assessments.

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.

People were supported by a small staff team. They told us arrived on time and stayed for the full length of their visit. The registered manager told us staff were able to cover each other’s annual leave and sickness, and recruitment was ongoing as the service grew. They said, “Existing staff are enough to cover at the moment.”

Staff were supported out of hours via the on-call system which was provided by the registered manager. If the registered manager was absent, there was an administrator who was able to provide support instead.

Staff completed mandatory training and specialist courses were arranged for staff if they supported a person with a specific condition. A staff member said, “I have completed all my mandatory trainings and refreshers.”

Staff had moving and handling training. No one were supported with hoisting at the time of our inspection, so no competency assessments had been documented. The registered manager told us if they had a new service user with those needs staff would complete refresher training before providing care.

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 had an Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policy. Staff were trained in IPC and wore the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE.) A relative told us, “They come in and wash their hands…they come with gloves.”

The provider had a medicines policy and staff received training.

At the time of our visit, staff were not supporting anyone with medicines administration.