You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 March 2020

About the service

Brent Shared Lives Scheme provides personal care for people as part of a shared lives scheme. A shared lives scheme supports a variety of different arrangements where families and individuals in local communities can offer accommodation and/or support for people. At this inspection, they were providing a regulated activity for 19 people.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Carers had received up-to-date safeguarding training and they knew how to identify and report concerns. There were effective systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. Carers had been recruited using appropriate checks and thorough assessments. There were systems in place to ensure proper and safe use of medicines. Effective processes were in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination. The service reviewed accidents and incidents to minimise reoccurrences of risk.

People's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this. People confirmed their care was tailored to their needs. There were arrangements to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met. People’s care was co-ordinated with a range of health and social care professionals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. When people were unable to make decisions about their care and support, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed.

People were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care. The service invested time to know people well and involved them in decisions about their care. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Individual care plans considered people’s values, beliefs, and wishes. This meant there were established ways of working which were person centred and not discriminatory.

People’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. We observed a range of practices that reflected person centred care. The service considered people’s choices and expressed needs. Families were involved as appropriate and people’s values were respected. People had access to appropriate care and information, which was presented in an accessible way. Support plans were regularly reviewed to monitor whether care was up to date and reflected people’s current needs. We discussed with the supplier relationship manager the need to develop more creative ways to explore people’s choices and preferences regarding their end of life care.

The service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. The registered manager had a sense of responsibility. There was a quality assurance process, which allowed the service to monitor its performance against standards to be achieved. Information to measure quality was collected in several ways, including audits, complaints, accidents and incidents and surveys. This information was used to drive improvements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was 'Good' (published 06 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspe

Inspection areas



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.