During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
IRC Care Services Limited provides home care visits and live in care to adults in their own homes.
CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our assessment, the service supported 58 people, 55 of whom received personal care.
Who the service is for
The service can support adults of any age, although most of the people using the service at the time of our assessment were older people, some of whom were living with dementia.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment between 11 September 2026 and 18 September 2026.
This service was previously rated good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. The evidence we gathered demonstrated the service continued to provide a good standard of care, which supported the existing rating.
Before our assessment, we reviewed the provider's Provider Information Return (PIR). This is an annual return providers submit to CQC about the service they deliver, including how they monitor quality, make improvements and meet people's needs.
During the assessment, we spoke with people who used the service and relatives to hear their views about the care and support provided. We obtained feedback from staff about the training, information, and support they received to carry out their roles.
Staff told us they received enough information about people’s needs before they began to support them. One member of staff said, “We receive information through care plans, risk assessments, and communication with colleagues before supporting someone. Our app [digital application] also has an overview where details and history of a client are recorded. This helps us understand their routines, preferences, health needs, and how they like to be supported.”
Staff were recruited safely and had access to the induction, training, and support they needed to carry out their roles. All staff had an induction when they joined the service, which they said had prepared them well for their roles. One member of staff told us, “I had an induction before starting work and had shadowing sessions with senior carers. I learnt about people’s care plans, policies, health and safety, safeguarding, medication, and my responsibilities.” Another member of staff said, “I was given induction verbally at the office as well as hands-on in the field with a senior staff member. This really helped me to bond with the service users and prepared me with their routines and gave me confidence to work with them.”
Staff had access to the training they needed to provide people’s care safely and effectively. Staff completed the Care Certificate, a set of 16 national standards in the UK
that outline the knowledge, skills, and behaviours expected of health and social care workers, and additional training relating to people’s individual needs. One member of staff told us, “I have had mandatory training and all the additional training relevant to people’s needs. I have had refresher courses when required, too.”
Staff received safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns they had about abuse or poor practice. Staff were confident any issues they raised would be taken seriously and knew how to escalate concerns to relevant agencies if necessary.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people may need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care and treatment in their own homes, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards cannot be used. Instead, an application can be made to the Court of Protection who can authorise deprivations of liberty. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA.
We found that staff understood the principles of the MCA and the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care on a day-to-day basis. One member of staff told us, “We explain what we are going to do, for example before assisting them with personal care, ask the person’s permission and respect their choices.” Another member of staff said, “It is important to communicate with the client at every stage of personal care.”
Staff recognised the value of promoting people's independence and respecting their choices. One member of staff told us, “We encourage people to do as much as they can for themselves rather than doing everything for them. We follow care plans, offer choices, encourage participation and use positive risk-taking where appropriate.”
People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff attended training and their competency was assessed before their were authorised to administer medicines. Staff recorded the medicines they gave people on electronic medicines administration records (eMARs). This system generated an automated alert if a member of staff attempted to complete a visit without recording medicines administration, which reduced the likelihood of missed doses.
People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident they would be taken seriously. Our review of the complaints log showed complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to address the issues identified and support improvements in the service.
Staff told us they felt able to speak up and said their views were listened to by the management team. One member of staff told us, “I am able to speak up. When I raised a concern, I was given the opportunity to explain the situation, which was taken seriously.” Another member of staff said, “We are able to raise suggestions or concerns with management and team leaders. The manager always listens, and staff supervision also plays an important role.”
Although staff felt supported in their roles, some identified areas where management communication could be improved. For example, 1 member of staff felt responses to leave requests could be more timely, while another said clearer communication would help them plan their time more effectively. We shared this feedback with the provider so they could take action to address it.
The provider had effective governance processes in place to help ensure effective management oversight of the service. The provider was also monitored by the commissioning local authority and submitted key performance data to the local authority each month. Our review of this data demonstrated the provider delivered a safe and reliable service.