You are here

Intrust Care Milton Keynes Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 7 December 2019

About the service:

Intrust Care Milton Keynes is a domiciliary care agency. At the time of our inspection, it was providing personal care to 34 people living in their own homes.

People’s experience of using this service:

Safe recruitment practices were not always adhered to. Prior to our inspection, we were made aware of a staff member working for the service who had not undergone a disclosure and barring service check (DBS). We found the staff member was no longer working for the service, but when they previously had been undertaking shifts, they had been doing so without the proper checks in place. Several other staff members had not provided adequate pre-employment references before being employed. Appropriate risk assessments had not been developed when a staff members DBS revealed criminal convictions.

The registered manager had not always notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of certain events as required by law.

Staff training was in place, but the systems used to record staff training were disorganised, unclear, and did not always provide an accurate and easy to monitor record of staff training that had taken place.

Staff told us they were supervised and felt confident in their roles. However, managers were not meeting the targets they had set for the frequency of formal supervision. Managers said they often spoke informally to staff via the phone, but this was not recorded.

Audits and quality checks took place, but were not thorough enough to pick up on the issues such as unsafe recruitment, failure to notify CQC, and lack of recorded staff supervision.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they felt safe care was delivered by staff. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and how to report abuse. Risk assessments were in place to manage risks within people’s lives. These assessments were reviewed and kept up to date.

When required, people were supported by staff to prepare food. When required, people had support with healthcare arrangements

People's consent was gained before any care was provided, and they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them.

People were supported in the least restrictive way possible. Care was personalised to each individual, and people and their relatives had a good relationship with staff.

People and their family were involved in their own care planning as much as was possible and a complaints system was in place.

The registered manager and provider were open and honest, and staff felt well supported by them.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (Published 20 May 2017).

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Well-led section of this full report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Follow up:

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 7 December 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 7 December 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 7 December 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 7 December 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 December 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.