You are here

Independent People Homecare Services Limited Inadequate

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 December 2020

About the service

Independent People Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own home. This included a nationwide, 24-hour live-in care service. At the time of the inspection there were 115 people using the service.

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

Staff were providing care to people with complex and extensive care needs. People told us they were not always supported by staff who had the correct skills, knowledge or competence to meet their assessed needs. Some staff told us they needed more training, and that whilst they had been given training this did not adequately meet their learning needs.

We could not be assured when training had been provided to staff that it was carried out by suitably qualified people and was adequate to meet some people's complex needs. Systems were not in place to ensure staff would be appropriately supervised when they were learning new skills but were not yet competent to carry out the task.

Staff had been given training to administer people's medicine. We could not be assured they were competent to undertake the task, as the registered manager had not carried out a competency assessment.

The registered manager told us medicine audits were carried out, but when we requested to see this information, this was not provided.

We found a number of safeguarding incidents which had not been raised with the relevant authorities by the registered manager. Shortly after our inspection, the registered manager confirmed these had been reported. Risk assessments were in place, but for some people these were not comprehensive and did not include an assessment of all of the tasks staff needed to carry out.

The registered manager did not record information relating to missed and late visits and this was not available for us to review. Some relatives told us arrangements to enable staff to take breaks when providing 24-hour live-in care, were not formalised by the care agency and that it was often left to the relative or family member to oversee and arrange. Some staff who provided 24-hour live-in care to people told us they did not always get their breaks.

We have made a recommendation about the environment of the premises.

The leadership of the service did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. There was a lack of consistency in how well the service was managed and led. Whilst the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted on the registered managers ability to carry out routine spot checks. People told us the registered provider made phone calls to check the quality of the service they had received, but that this system was ineffective to address the issues we found. Systems to monitor and check the quality of the service people received were ineffective because, they did not identify the issues we found.

Some people told us communication between themselves and the office was poor and needed to improve. Most people said that once a staff member had been placed in the home, limited checks were carried out. The registered manager had delegated some of their oversight tasks to field care supervisors, and at the time of the inspection, they had two vacancies for these posts. We could not be assured there were adequate systems in place to monitor the service because robust and effective audits were not consistently carried out, to monitor the quality of the service people received.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies in the service supported this practice.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We have recommended that the service improves their current infection and prevention control measures.

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

Rating at last inspection


Inspection areas



Updated 9 December 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 9 December 2020

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 December 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 December 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 9 December 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.