You are here

Intrust Care Milton Keynes Good

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Intrust Care Milton Keynes on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Intrust Care Milton Keynes, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 9 September 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Intrust Care Milton Keynes is a domiciliary care service. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 27 people using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider was aware of their role and responsibilities in meeting their legal obligations. Systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place, and were used to develop the service and drive improvement. Records were securely and accurately maintained.

The provider had created an open and inclusive culture seeking the views of those using the service and staff about the quality of the service provided.

The provider, in order to enable staff to deliver quality care provided staff with ongoing support through training, supervision and appraisal, and worked with key stakeholders and organisations to keep up to date with good practice.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published on 9 December 2019).

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 12 and 14 November 2019. A breach of legal requirements was found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve good governance.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Question Well-led which contained the requirement.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Intrust Care Milton Keynes on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 12 November 2019

During a routine inspection

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 www.cqc.org.uk

Inspection carried out on 31 May 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 May 2017 and 01 June 2017 and was announced.

Intrust Care Limited provides personal care to people who live in their own homes in order for them to maintain their independence.

At the time of our inspection the provider confirmed they were providing personal care to 25 people

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse. Staff told us they were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by their manager and people were kept safe.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible. Assessments were carried out to identify risk and staff were able to support people safely and in a positive manner.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet people's current needs. People told us that their care was never missed and staff told us they could confidently complete the calls that were needed to be covered . People told us they consistently had the same team of carers that arrived on time.

The staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service.

Staff induction training and on-going training and qualification was provided which ensured that the staff had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles.

People told us that their medicines were administered safely and on time. The agency used records provided by the local authority, in line with local authority medication policy.

Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior team, and had regular one to one

supervisions, spot checks and competency assessments to monitor their on-going skill and performance within their roles .

People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. Consent forms were signed by people or their representatives when required.

People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this. Staff were able to explain both the preferences and health requirements that people had within their diets and provide the support to them that they needed.

People were supported to access health appointments when necessary. The agency had good links and relationships with local health professionals. Staff had good knowledge of people’s health and conditions, and helped people to both book and access a variety of different appointments.

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. Both the management and the staff had a good knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes, their personal history, personality, and family relationships.

People and their families were involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported.

The service had a complaints procedure in place to ensure that people and their families were able to provide feedback about their care and to help the service make improvements where required. The people we spoke with knew how to use it.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action was needed