Infinity Care Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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 in breach of legal regulations relating to good governance.

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.

There was a positive culture where people using the service, relatives and staff felt empowered and involved in decisions. The provider asked stakeholders to complete surveys and reviews of their experiences. Managers carried out spot checks and observations to make sure staff were following policies and procedures.

People using the service and their relatives felt the agency was well managed. They told us they would recommend individual care workers and the agency.

Staff enjoyed working for the agency. They explained managers were supportive and friendly. Comments from staff included, “The agency encourages the best interests of the clients”, “It is a good work environment”, “I enjoy helping people and like to treat them like my parents” and “The multicultural client group is reflected in the different cultures of staff.”

The registered manager had not always ensured their regulatory responsibilities were carried out. Providers are required to notify CQC about certain events. The provider had not always done this. Shortly before our assessment, they had recognised this and submitted retrospective notifications. We discussed this with the registered manager to ensure they understood the regulatory requirements.

The registered manager had experience and qualifications in care and managing care services. They demonstrated a good knowledge of individual people using the service and staff. We heard them interacting with people in a friendly and positive way.

The registered manager told us they recognised that improvements had been needed at the service and had sourced an external consultant to support them to make improvements.

People using the service told us they knew who the registered manager and senior staff were and had met with them. Their comments included, “A manager came and we discussed the care. They were very nice” and “I have a number for the managers and can ring them if I need.”

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. They found them approachable and supportive.

The provider had systems to enable staff and others to speak up when they felt something was wrong. Staff told us they knew what to do if they had concerns. They explained they felt confident speaking up.

The provider had policies and procedures to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us their individual needs and diversity were respected. Staff who did not speak English as a first language had been supported to enrol on English language courses at college. Staff told us they were often assigned to support people who shared their culture and religion. They felt this helped them provide good care and they enjoyed this. Staff told us they were able to request time off for religious celebrations and caring responsibilities. They told us the staff team celebrated special events together.

The provider’s systems and processes for monitoring and improving quality had not always been effective. Audits had not always identified where improvements were needed. For example, medicines audits had not always identified recording errors by staff. The provider used an electronic call monitoring system to monitor whether care visits took place on time. We analysed data from this and saw that some calls were not scheduled appropriately. For example, not allowing staff travel time between visits. Additionally, we found staff had not used the electronic system to record over 20% of visits. This meant information was not always accurate. The provider’s checks and audits had not been effective in identifying this and not enough action had been taken to make the required improvements.

The provider was in the process of updating their systems including audits. They had developed templates and processes for robust auditing. They had recently started using these systems and the changes had not been embedded at the time of our assessment.

The provider was working with a consultant to make improvements to the service.

The provider worked with external professionals to meet people’s needs. Staff liaised with health and social care professionals when needed.

The provider promoted a learning culture. Managers organised regular team meetings to discuss areas of practice and lessons learnt. Staff had opportunities to ask questions and share experiences. The provider supported staff from abroad to access English language courses.

The provider sourced a consultant who supported them to develop the service and access information about best practice.