• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Birmingham Shared Lives Scheme

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Southside Business Centre Room 23, 249 Ladypool Road Sparkbrook, Birmingham, West Midlands, B12 8LF (0121) 464 3164

Provided and run by:
Birmingham City Council

All Inspections

14 August 2014

During a routine inspection

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, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. 

This inspection was announced. This meant that we gave the service short notice so that management and staff were available to assist with our inspection.

Shared Lives Birmingham was last inspected in November 2013. At that time the provider met all the regulations we checked.

The Shared Lives scheme Birmingham recruits, trains and supports paid carers who provide placements for people within their own family homes in the community. The service caters for people aged over 18 who have a disability and for older adults with care needs. When we inspected the scheme was supporting 58 people who lived in family homes and there were 68 approved Shared Lives carers.

The service had a registered manager. The registered manager was absent at the time of the inspection and the provider had appointed a person to be in charge on a temporary basis. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. The provider did not notify us of this change, which they are required to do.

The provider had not considered the impact of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) Supreme court ruling, which extended the safeguarding of independent scrutiny, where people may be deprived of their liberty. In community settings providers must make application to the court of protection.        

All the people we spoke with told us that they liked where they were living and that they were well cared for. People told us that they were supported to be independent and to take part in their chosen hobbies and interests that they enjoyed.

Shared Lives carers told us that they had received the support and training they needed to carry out their role. Robust procedures and systems were in place to ensure that people who used the scheme were supported by carers who were suitable for their role.

Shared Lives workers told us that they had received the support they needed to carry out their role. They needed training in some areas to ensure their skills and knowledge were maintained. We found that systems were in place for workers to follow so that robust assessment and monitoring of carers and the shared lives placement took place.

All the people we spoke with told us that their views were asked for and they had someone they could talk to if needed. All the staff that we spoke with in the different roles throughout the scheme understood their responsibility to speak out about poor practice if they needed to.

That was a staffing structure in place that ensured that there was enough shared Lives workers to support the role of the shared lives carers. Regular meetings took place with carers and workers so that there was an opportunity to learn and share good practice.

We found that the well-established systems in place to monitor the quality of the service had been maintained. Some improvements were needed to make sure that changes in the law in respect of DoLS were incorporated into practice. The provider also needed to comply with the law in respect of notifying us about specific information, we had not been told that the registered manager was absent from the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.     

15 October 2013

During a routine inspection

The Shared Lives Scheme supported people to have their care needs met within a family environment. Placements typically provided care for one to three adults. These could be on a long term or respite basis. This inspection was announced. We gave the provider short notice of our visit to make sure that the staff we needed to speak with would be available.

We spoke with four people who used the service. They all told us they were well looked after and they made choices in relation to their everyday lives. One person told us, 'It's absolutely fantastic, the work my carer does with me is fantastic.' Another person told us, 'I'd give my carer 10 out of 10.'

Shared lives workers carried out regular reviews with the person and their carer to ensure that the care being provided continued to meet the person's needs.

The provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people who used the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse. People we spoke with said that they felt safe and supported.

Robust procedures and checks were in place to ensure that people were supported by carers who were suited to work with vulnerable adults. We spoke with four carers who informed us that were well supported by the manager and staff employed by the scheme.

The provider had a system in place to deal with comments and complaints. People who used the service could be confident that their comments and complaints were listened to.

13 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received from the carers approved by the scheme. One person using the service told us 'It's fantastic, I get lots of support.' We also spoke with a relative of a person using the service. They told us 'I know she's happy there.'

Shared lives workers carried out regular reviews with the person and their carer to ensure that the care being provided continued to meet the person's needs. One person using the service told us 'I take part in my review meeting and get asked for my views.'

We spoke with four of the carers who informed us that were well supported by the registered manager and staff employed by the scheme.

Shared lives workers told us that they had undertaken recent training about safeguarding issues. From our discussions it was evident that they had a good understanding of safeguarding matters. However the provider may find it useful to note that administrative workers had not received any safeguard training. This should be addressed as they were often the first point of contact when people telephoned the office of the service.