Archived: inTouch Home Care

Updated 5 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an announced inspection that took place on 5 and 12 September 2017. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because of its smaller size and as members of the management team can be out of the office we needed to be sure they would be available.

The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) in advance of the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection, we checked notifications made to us by the provider, safeguarding alerts raised about people using the service, and information we held on our database about the service and provider.

The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and an Expert by Experience, which is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their involvement was limited to phoning people using the service and their relatives to ask them their views of the service.

There were 48 people using the service for personal care support on the first day of our inspection. During the inspection, we received feedback about the service from six people using it, six people’s relatives, and two community health and social care professionals. We also spoke with nine care staff, three senior and office staff members, the interim manager and the operations director.

During our visits to the office we looked at five care plans and risk assessments for people using the service plus other records about people’s care including visit schedules, medicines records and care delivery records. We looked at the personnel files of five staff members, complaint records, incident records and visit plans. We were also provided with, on request, further specific information about the management of the service in-between our visits. This included specific policies and audit tools.

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.