This responsive assessment was carried out to check if the service had made improvements since our last inspection. Inna Care Ltd provides care and support to people living in their own home. Not everyone using Inna Care Ltd received regulated activity; the CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. This assessment included a site visit to the office location. This assessment was carried out by an assessor, a regulatory coordinator and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Assessment activity started on 15 August 2025 and ended on 8 September 2025. We looked at 15 quality statements as part of this assessment. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we wanted to make sure someone would be available to support us with the inspection. The site visit was carried out on 19 August 2025. We spoke to the registered manager, team leader and administrator at the time of our visit. We also gathered further information remotely from the service such as staff call logs and policies. We spoke to 1 person and 11 relatives of people that used the service and 10 staff after the site visit for feedback about the service.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-4236588711.
Inna Care remains rated Requires Improvement overall, retaining this rating for a consecutive inspection, with an ongoing breach of Regulation 18 due to care visits not always being on time or delivered by the correct number of staff. Significant improvements were made across risk assessment, medicines management, consent, recruitment and governance since the previous inspection, with four former regulatory breaches remedied.
Concerns (3)
criticalStaffing levels: “They come sometimes at the wrong time, they are supposed to come between 12-1.30pm but sometimes they come at 3.30pm or after 4pm.”
criticalMissed or late visits: “care visits did not always take place on time and were not always completed by 2 staff when this was needed.”
moderateGovernance: “a substantial number of calls still had no travel time planned, and staff were able to be logged into multiple places at the same time.”
Strengths
· Recruitment systems were robust, with verified identities, thorough applications, criminal history checks, and references from previous employers.
· Medicines were managed safely, with competency assessments, properly recorded medicines needs, and regular checking by senior staff.
· Infection prevention measures were in place, with staff trained and supplied with PPE.
· Risk assessments were person-centred and updated as needs changed, covering choking, falls and specific health conditions.
· Staff received regular supervision and appraisals, and a training matrix confirmed all staff were up to date.
Quality-Statement breakdown (22)
safe: Staffing and recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choicesGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietGood
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careGood
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and controlGood
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood
responsive: Supporting people to develop and maintain relationships and take part in activitiesGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsGood
responsive: End of life care and supportGood
well-led: Promoting a positive culture; continuous learning; engaging people and staffRequires improvement
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about roles; duty of candourGood
Inna Care, a domiciliary care agency in Havering, was rated Requires Improvement overall following a focused August 2022 inspection, with breaches identified across six regulations including staffing, fit and proper persons, safe care and treatment, person-centred care, consent, and good governance. Key failures included poor call planning resulting in late and potentially missed visits, inadequate recruitment records, absent consent documentation, incomplete risk assessments, unsafe medicines oversight, and ineffective governance systems that failed to detect or address these concerns.
Concerns (13)
criticalMissed or late visits: “high levels of lateness with little or no travel time planned, and staff being logged into multiple places at once.”
criticalStaffing levels: “The provider had not deployed sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced persons.”
criticalGovernance: “The provider's quality assurance systems did not identify the concerns we found and therefore were insufficient and ineffective.”
criticalCare planning: “People's needs were not always assessed before they began using the service. We saw multiple instances where they relied solely on the information provided by the referral agent.”
criticalConsent / capacity: “There were no documentary records of people consenting to their care...the registered manager told us they used to seek written consent but had stopped since changing to a digital system.”
criticalRecord keeping: “numerous instances where records we would expect to see were either not in place, were missing entirely and or lacked information.”
criticalMedication management: “The service was not keeping a record of these MAR charts in the office and therefore not auditing or checking whether the medicine had been administered.”
criticalSafeguarding: “we found numerous instances where there appeared to be missed calls...This resulted in our raising a safeguarding alert with the local authority.”
moderateStaff training: “nine staff not receiving infection control training, eleven staff not having health and safety training, seven not having medicines administration and nine not having safeguarding training.”
moderateSupervision / appraisal: “the provider was unable to demonstrate staff were receiving regular supervision and a supervision matrix indicated as much.”
moderateIncident learning: “The service had an accident book, but it was blank and was not being used.”
moderateInfection control: “the provider was not following government guidance with regards to staff testing...There was no system in place to monitor whether staff testing was occurring.”
moderatePerson-centred care: “The service was not promoting a positive person-centred culture...people were not receiving calls in a person-centred way.”
Strengths
· Staff worked alongside other agencies to support people to receive effective timely care.
· A safeguarding policy was in place and people told inspectors they felt safe receiving care.
· Spot checks were completed with service users and feedback was being gathered through questionnaires and surveys.
· PPE was available in ample supply and staff were observed wearing gloves and masks.
· Complaints were investigated and actions completed; families were informed about incidents.
Quality-Statement breakdown (14)
safe: Staffing and recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and management; Using medicines safelyRequires improvement
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongRequires improvement
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseRequires improvement
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawRequires improvement
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceRequires improvement
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experience
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-4236588711.
Requires improvement
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietRequires improvement
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringRequires improvement
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careRequires improvement
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsRequires improvement