Archived: Shared Lives

At the time of the inspection 209 people were receiving a service from Shared Lives. 14 were receiving intermediate care; these are permanent placements where a person assessed as needing this type of care lives permanently with the Shared Lives carer. 25 people were receiving respite care, this is where a person can either stay at a shared carer's house or the carer can stay at the person's own house for an agreed period of time. The rest of the service is sessional care which although provided by Shared Lives would not need to be registered with the Commission if this was their sole purpose. Sessional care can be anything from helping people to budget their finances, accompany on visits, for example a hospital appointment, support with social activities or to help maintain a hobby.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, Shared Lives carers, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Training records highlighted that both staff and carers were up to date with all mandatory training needed to support people using the service provided by Shared Lives.

Staff members and carers were aware of people's rights to make their own decisions. They were also aware of the need to protect people's rights when they had difficulty in making decisions for themselves. This is a legal requirement that is set out in an Act of Parliament called The Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Shared Lives had a safeguarding policy in place. This included the procedures which staff would follow if they needed to report an alleged incident. This was designed to ensure that any possible problems that arose were dealt with openly and people were protected from possible harm.

Is the service effective?

The three carers we spoke with were very positive about the Shared Lives service and the staff members that worked with them. We also spoke with four staff members during our visit. They explained how people were referred to the service and how they 'matched' a carer to the person needing the service. They told us this was crucial in order to help ensure the service worked. They were all clear on the aims of the service and their roles in helping people maintain their independence and ability to make their own choices in their lives.

They told us about the importance of continuity of care and how contingency plans were put in place to ensure another suitable person was available to deliver support if needed. Staff and carers were very positive about the service being provided.

All staff and carers said that they felt supported to do their job and had received regular formal supervision.

Is the service caring?

The people we spoke with were very positive about the Shared Lives service carers supporting them. Comments included; 'they make life possible for me, brilliant', 'more than happy', 'delighted with it' and 'extremely happy, perfect'.

Staff members and Shared Lives carers were very positive about the quality of the service being provided.

Is the service responsive?

We looked at six support plans and could see that each of them was detailed, personalised and reflected the needs of the individual. We also saw that the plans were written in a style that would enable the person reading it to have a good idea of what help and assistance someone needed at a particular time. All of the documents we looked at were well maintained, were being reviewed regularly and were up to date. The reviews being undertaken showed any changes to the person's support.

Is the service well-led?

The staff members and Shared Lives carers we spoke with said that the service was well managed and they enjoyed the work. We saw that the provider had a range of quality assurance systems in place including survey forms for customers which demonstrated there was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

People told us they were looked after well and were treated with dignity and respect. They were asked their views on how they would like to be cared for and supported. For example, one relative said; "The carers do as much as possible to take her where she wants, she can always do things she wants to do."

Staff told us that they were dedicated to their work and the care of the people who they were responsible for.

We spoke to two members of staff in detail about vulnerable people and it was clear that they had a good understanding of safeguarding and whistle blowing and how to raise any concerns they may have.

We asked the registered manager to tell us what systems were in place to help protect people against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care. We were told that a number of checks and systems were in place. We saw that various audits were carried out. These included home environment, finance, medication, specialist equipment and training needs.

We spoke to the registered manager about the provider's complaints process. We were shown the "compliments and complaints" procedure. There was also an easy read version for people who had learning difficulties.