You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

inTouch Home Care is a homecare agency based in Barnet that provides services to people of any age. At the time of this announced inspection, they were providing personal care and support to 48 people living in their own homes.

The service did not have a registered manager at the time of this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager of the provider’s other homecare agency based in Coventry was managing the agency on an interim basis in conjunction with the operations director.

At our previous inspection of this service, in July 2016, breaches of legal requirements were found. These were in respect of staff recruitment processes, staffing numbers, complaints handling, and the need for consent to care. At this inspection, we found all these matters had been addressed.

There were enough suitably recruited and skilled staff to meet people’s overall needs. The service had many ways of ensuring staff had the knowledge and skills for their care roles, including regular checks of staff knowledge and practices.

People generally had the same small team of care staff visiting them. New staff were often introduced to people through known and experienced staff members. This all helped positive and trusting relationships to develop, and for people’s needs and preferences to be well attended to.

People were treated well. Their privacy and dignity was respected and promoted, and their independence was enabled where possible. Consent to care was appropriately sought.

Good attention was paid to people’s health, nutrition, medicines, and welfare, both at care visits and in feeding back concerns to the office so that further action could be taken. Staff felt supported and valued, which in turn helped them to provide the quality care service that people and their representatives told us about.

The service identified and addressed care delivery risks. This included protecting people from abuse, reviewing accidents and incidents, and considering complaints.

Our overall findings demonstrated the service provided high-quality care that was open to learning and improving. There were robust systems of auditing quality and compliance with regulations. The views of people and their representatives, and care staff, were incorporated into audits. The service operated a positive, open and empowering culture.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was safe. There were enough suitably recruited and skilled staff to meet people�s overall needs. There were systems to keep risks to people�s safety and welfare under review.

The provider took steps to ensure people were protected from abuse and that any concerns were fully investigated.

The service had systems to ensure people received safe support with their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was effective. There were many systems for ensuring staff had the knowledge and skills needed to meet people�s needs.

Good attention was paid to people�s health, nutrition and welfare, both at care visits and where needed, in feeding back concerns to the office so that further action could be taken.

The provider had embedded systems to ensure people or appropriate representatives consented to care.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was caring. People�s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted, and their independence was enabled where possible. The service took steps to ensure its staff were caring.

People generally had the same small team of care staff visiting. New staff were often introduced to people through known and experienced staff members. This all helped positive and trusting relationships to develop.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was responsive. People�s needs and preferences were attended to by care staff who knew people well as individuals.

The service had robust systems for seeking and acting on people�s views, concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 October 2017

The service was well-led. Although there was no registered manager, management arrangements at the service were ensuring the delivery of high-quality care. This included robust processes of auditing quality and risk. The service operated a positive and empowering culture, and valued input from people and their representatives.