Certitude London Shared Lives

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The scheme made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The scheme received referrals from local authorities who funded the people being placed. Prospective shared lives users, their families, external health and social care professionals and the schemes coordinators and potential carers were all involved in the placement matching process. The process considered each person’s health, wellbeing, and communication needs, which enabled the scheme to match people with the most suitable carers. People spoke positively about the matching process and said sufficient time was always taken for people being placed and carers to get to know one another and build a relationship before any placements were approved. Carers personal histories, cultural background, social interests, personality and geographical location were all taken into account as part of this matching process.

The scheme planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Carers followed detailed guidance in people’s support plans which were continuously reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in people’s needs and wishes. Carers were supported through training and supervision to deliver care and support people in line with legislation, good practice and standards. Coordinators also conducted regular quality monitoring home visits to each placement, known as ‘Link meetings,’ where they would speak face-to-face with people placed by the scheme and their carers. An external care professional told us, “Through our reviews, we often get feedback from our clients that the carers do listen to them and adapt their support if things change. This gives us confidence that they are not only aware of what needs to be done but are also flexible and responsive to ensure the best outcomes for everyone.” Another added, “We have evidence that the service has a good track record of matching people with carers who have common social interests. The manager reports any concerns about compatibility to us during regular contract monitoring meetings we arrange, so we can continuously review and assess the suitability of our clients shared lives placement.”

The scheme worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. People benefitted from the staff teams’ engagement with other services.

The registered manager, coordinators and carers all reported positive working relationships with community health and social care professionals and bodies. Systems were in place to make sure information was shared in a timely manner by everyone involved in people’s placement. This ensured a joined up, consistent approach to delivering safe and effective care to people in line with their individually assessed needs and preferences. An external care professional told us, “The scheme works well with other community care professionals to make sure everyone’s needs are met.”

The scheme supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported by the scheme to stay healthy and well in line with their assessed personal and health care needs and preferences. People had personalised health action plans and hospital passports in place which carers followed. A hospital passport is a document designed to help people with a learning disability or autistic people to communicate their health and medical care needs to health and medical care professionals. The scheme ensured people could access prompt support if there was a problem with their health or they became unwell. People routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had regular screening and check-ups with a range of community-based health care professionals including, GP’s, district nurses, opticians and dentists.

People also received support to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced and healthy diet. People were involved in choosing and planning the food they ate. One person told, “I go food shopping with my carer and she helps me buy healthy food.” Another person added, “Tonight we’re going to have fish for our tea, which I like to eat.”

The scheme routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care and support was regularly reviewed to ensure this was meeting their assessed needs and expected outcomes. The scheme understood how to support people to help them achieve positive outcomes in relation to their care and support needs. They monitored the care and support provided to people and knew what action to take if any improvements to this were required. Systems were in place to monitor the care and support provided to people to ensure this remained effective.

The scheme told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The scheme was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to understand the care and support they received from their carer. This enabled people to consent to this if they wished.

Mental capacity assessments were in place to formally record decisions related to people's capacity. People’s care plans made it clear what decisions people could make for themselves. For example, we saw that people had agreed and consented to the contents of their health action plans. They contained details of how people communicated their decisions and how they would give consent. They also included how people made decisions and who to consult if people were unable to make certain decisions. For example, we saw where people were not able to make decisions in relation to large financial purchases, best interests meetings had taken place to ensure people's rights were protected. Coordinators and carers understood people’s capacity to make decisions about the care and support they received.

The schemes managers, coordinators and carers had all received up to date Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) training.