Infinity 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. At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The provider was breaching legal regulations relating to staffing.

This service scored 62 (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 systems to learn when things went wrong. Staff reported incidents, accidents and concerns. Managers investigated these. They liaised with external professionals, people and their relatives to make sure improvements were made to their care. For example, identifying when additional equipment was needed to keep a person safe.

Managers organised meetings with staff to discuss best practice and learning from incidents. They held individual sessions with staff involved, and organised retraining when needed. They also organised team discussions and shared information through mobile applications and written guidance to help ensure all staff learnt from adverse events.

Relatives told us the agency contacted them when things went wrong and involved them in discussions about making improvements.

The provider supported people to have safe transitions between services. They liaised with people using the service, relatives and external professionals to support people being admitted to or leaving hospital. The registered manager explained about the work they had undertaken to support some people who had moved to an area they were unfamiliar with and people leaving homelessness. They had supported people to access local services, such as the GP, and learn about the local area. They had also supported people to obtain equipment and supplies needed when starting out in a new home.

People and their relatives explained the agency had provided the support and information they needed when they started using the service. They also confirmed staff liaised with other professionals to discuss changes to their care when this was needed and they had consented to this.

The provider had systems to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff undertook training about safeguarding adults and children. Managers discussed this with staff to help ensure the training was embedded.

The provider worked with the local safeguarding authorities to investigate allegations of abuse, learn from these and put in place systems to protect people from preventable harm. The provider shared information about how to recognise and report abuse with people using the service. This helped ensure they knew who to speak with if they had concerns.

People using the agency and their relatives felt safe with the care staff. One relative raised a concern about safety. We discussed this with the provider and informed the local safeguarding team for these concerns to be investigated. The provider responded appropriately and spoke with the person and their relative to ensure concerns were investigated and resolved.

The provider had systems to help manage risk. However, they were in the process of updating risk assessments and management plans. They had not completed this work and there was an increased risk that information for some people was not up to date or detailed enough. To mitigate this risk, the provider had prioritised updating records for people assessed as at high risk. They had also carried out additional checks for other people to ensure they were safe whilst they were updating records.

Not all staff had undertaken practical training or been assessed to help with physically supporting people to move. The registered manager explained staff who needed to do this had undertaken the relevant training. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us the importance of supporting people in a safe and correct way. The provider had a plan to ensure all staff training in this area was completed.

People using the service and their relatives told us risks were assessed and planned for.

The provider helped to ensure people lived in a safe environment. They assessed people’s home environments and identified risk to the safety of people and staff. They discussed these with people, their relatives, landlords and commissioners so that any concerns could be rectified. Staff were reminded to check the safety and security of people’s property during their care visits.

The provider did not always ensure safe and effective staffing. One relative explained their loved one had regular hospital appointments and needed their care to take place before the hospital transport arrived. They told us this sometimes did not happen and this caused them anxiety. Another relative explained they had requested a bedtime visit at a specific time. However, the agency had scheduled the call to take place earlier than this which did not reflect their individual needs. We discussed this feedback with the registered manager, and they agreed to investigate these concerns and ensure visit times were discussed with everyone during assessments and monitoring checks.

People and their relatives had varying experiences about whether staff arrived at the scheduled time. Some people were happy and told us the agency always informed them if staff were running late. One relative said, “The carers often stay longer than their allocated time.” However, others explained care workers did not always arrive on time. We discussed this with the registered manager. The provider used an electronic call monitoring system to monitor visit times. The provider was in the process of improving staff compliance with this to have a better oversight of any late or early visits.

The provider did not always ensure staff were suitably qualified or skilled because they had not always undertaken essential training to understand about people’s needs. New staff undertook a range of training and an induction to the service. The provider was developing a training plan to ensure staff training was updated. Staff told us training was helpful and they felt supported in their role. Staff had regular opportunities to meet managers to discuss their work and performance.

The provider had procedures to ensure suitable staff were recruited. However, we found not all checks had been robustly carried out for some staff. The provider had already identified this and had started to put in place additional safeguards to ensure checks were always in place.

The provider had procedures to help prevent and control infection. Staff completed relevant training. Managers carried out spot checks to ensure staff were following procedures.

People using the service and their relatives told us care workers wore personal protective equipment (PPE), washed their hands and kept their home clean and tidy. Their comments included, “Staff always wear PPE” and “We have the same carers, and they do the cleaning. We are happy with this.”

The provider made sure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed. The provider had improved systems for managing medicines, including retraining staff and improving records and audits of medicines management. Managers tested staff knowledge and observed them supporting people with medicines. Managers carried out regular audits to check medicines had been administered correctly. People using the service and their relatives told us they were happy with the support they received in this area. Some people managed this independently or with minimal support from staff. The provider made sure care plans and risk assessments recorded the level of support people needed and how risks should be mitigated.