Archived: Shared Lives Service

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found -

Is the service safe?

All the staff we spoke to were aware of what to do in the event of an emergency and procedures were in place to deal with emergencies. A carers handbook was available which included emergency contact numbers and guidance for emergency situations.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with four members of staff who worked for the shared lives service across different parts of the County. It was evident from speaking to staff, carers and people who used the service that the matching of carers and people using the service took into account each person's assessed needs and wishes. Introductions were made and visits set up to ensure that people's personalities were compatible.

Is the service caring?

We spoke to ten people who were either shared lives carers or people who used the service. All of the comments we received were extremely positive. Some of the comments we received from people who used the service were as follows;

"I'm very happy living here. I'm well looked after. I do different things every day of the week."

"I'm 100% happy."

"I love living here, it's fantastic."

Is the service responsive?

We saw evidence on the Shared Lives database (CHARMS) that regular monitoring visits took place to ensure that people using the service were happy with the support they received. We saw that a number of areas were covered such as general wellbeing, activities, medication, carer training and finance. It was evident from speaking to people who used the service, carers and staff that meetings and reviews had taken place on a regular basis with the minimum frequency being once per quarter. We also saw that an annual review also took place which covered similar areas in more depth.

Is the service well-led?

There was evidence that regular audits and checks took place. This included random quality checks of how monitoring checks were carried out, making sure that caseloads for staff were manageable, training for carers and staff and reviews.

People were supported to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. Support plans detailed personal preferences and how carers were to provide support in ways that reflected the individuality of the person in placement.

We saw that there was a warm, comfortable and relaxed relationship between people who used the service and their carers. There was a good matching process between carers and people using the service. Carers and people in placement told us that introductions took place at a pace suitable for all parties.

Comments from people using the service included; 'I am happy and settled.' 'I have been doing catering at college.' And about respite care 'It is like a holiday. Something different and I am happy there.'

Carers spoke highly of the support they received from staff. Comments included; 'they always get back to you' And 'you only have to ask.'

Training, policies, procedures and good practice supported the protection of people using the service. Staff selection and carer assessments included robust background checks, which helped to ensure staff and carers were of good character. There were safeguards in place to protect people's finances.

Regular supervision sessions and group meetings gave staff opportunities to share good practice and discuss any training or performance issues. Carers were kept well informed and told us they felt part of a team.

Quality assurance helped to promote good standards of service delivery. Health and safety checks helped to keep people using the service safe. New risks were identified and responded to.

A comprehensive complaints policy and procedure was available. Systems were in place to promote learning and service improvement from complaints.