- Homecare service
IRC Care Services Limited
Assessment report published 19 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People received a safe and reliable service from staff who knew them and their needs well. People told us staff timekeeping was good and they were kept informed on the rare occasions staff were running late.
People said their needs had been assessed before they received care and that they were involved in this process. One relative said the local authority initially assessed their family member while they were in hospital, and the provider completed a further assessment when their family member returned home. The relative said, “When [family member] got home, they did another assessment, which was very thorough, and we were involved in that.”
Relatives told us staff treated their family members with kindness and respect. One relative said of staff, “I find them very good. They are kind and caring and very respectful. "Relatives told us their family member had established positive relationships with the staff who supported them. One relative said of staff, “They are all very friendly. [Family member] enjoys talking to them. He gets on with them very well; he enjoys their company.” Another relative told us, “They all interact with [family member] very well. They sit and chat and do crosswords with him.”
People told us staff were friendly and helpful. One person said of staff, “They are all very nice. They ask, ‘Is there anything else you would like me to do before I go?’, which is very helpful.” Relatives said the service had treated them with care and compassion when their family members were unwell, which they appreciated. One relative told us, “They were very good when [family member] was poorly. They kept in touch with me while he was in hospital, which was nice. They were very supportive.”
Relatives told us staff monitored their family members’ health and wellbeing effectively and highlighted any concerns they observed. One relative said, “They are very alert to [family member’s] needs; they are my eyes and ears.“ The relative told us staff had recently highlighted a concern which prompted them to seek medical advice, saying, “They spotted it, and on the strength of that I rang the district nurse, and they are going to come in today to check it.”
People were satisfied with the response from the office and management team when they needed advice or information. A relative told us, “I have always been able to get hold of them fairly quickly, and if you leave a message, they do get back to you.” People said the service was responsive if they needed to change their scheduled care arrangements. A relative told us, “We have had to change timings for doctors’ appointments and they have always been very flexible.”
Most people were happy with the consistency of their care and said they knew which member of staff would be visiting them. One person said, “We always know who is coming; it is nice to see familiar, friendly faces.” A relative told us, “We see about 4 [staff], which we are happy with. [Family member] gets on well with all of them.” However, 1 person said they would prefer to receive their support from fewer staff and told us they did not always know who would be visiting them. We shared this feedback with the provider so they could take action to address it.