We carried out a review of the data available to us about PSS Shared Lives Staffordshire on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about PSS Shared Lives Staffordshire, you can give feedback on this service.
PSS (Person Shaped Support) Shared Lives Staffordshire and Wolverhampton is a 'shared lives' service providing personal care to adults who are living with learning, physical or sensory disabilities and/or people with mental health conditions. The service provides long term placements, short term placements and respite care by ‘matching’ people to shared lives ‘carers’ who can offer accommodation and support. At the time of the inspection 21 people were receiving support from PSS Shared Lives Staffordshire and Wolverhampton.
The support that is offered is an alternative to residential care; it provides people with the opportunity to live as independently as possible. Shared lives carers provide care and support in their own homes to people they are ‘matched’ with.
Shared lives carers are self-employed; however, PSS Shared Lives Staffordshire and Wolverhampton ensure all carers are safely recruited and supported in the provision of delivering care and support that people require.
People’s experience of using this service:
People’s support plans and risk assessments were established from the outset.
Safe measures were put in place to ensure people received the required level of support needed. Risk assessments were reviewed on an annual basis or when any changes to support needs were identified.
Shared lives carers were safely recruited; people were ‘matched’ with shared lives carer who had undergone the appropriate recruitment checks and were deemed suitable to support vulnerable adults.
People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm and abuse. There was an up to date safeguarding and whistleblowing policy in place and all shared lives carers were provided with safeguarding training. The registered manager maintained a good level of oversight in relation to all safeguarding incidents that occurred.
Safe medication practices were in place. People received support with their medication from shared lives carers who had completed the appropriate medication training and regularly had their competency levels checked.
Principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were complied with. Where possible, people provided their consent to receive care and support and encouraged to make decisions around the level of care they required.
People’s hydration and nutrition support needs were effectively managed; care records contained information in relation to any dietary requirements and the level of support people needed.
Relatives confirmed that their loved ones received kind, sincere and compassionate care and shared lives carers were familiar with the tailored level of support that was required.
We received positive feedback about the quality and safety of care people received. Relatives and shared lives carers confirmed that people received high-quality, person-centred care.
High-quality, person-centred approach to care was evident. Care records contained detailed information about people’s likes, preferences and wishes.
People were encouraged and supported to participate in different activities; hobbies and interest were established from outset and shared lives carers helped people to engage in social activities they enjoyed.
The registered provider had a complaints process in place. Complaints were responded to and managed in line with organisational policy.
The registered manager ensured that the quality and safety of the care was continuously monitored and reviewed. People received safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection service was rated ‘Good’ (report published September 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned, announced inspection to confirm that the service remained 'good'.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe and the shared lives carers and staff knew how to protect people from harm and abuse. Risks to individuals were assessed, managed and reviewed. People received the level of support they needed to meet their needs and keep them safe. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place and people were supported to have their medicines safely.
The shared lives carers and staff had the knowledge and skills needed to provide effective care. People were supported to make their own decisions. When they were not able to make certain decisions about their care and support, this was provided in their best interests. People were supported to have a balanced diet and maintain their health and well-being.
People were treated with kindness and respect. The shared lives carers and staff knew people well and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were encouraged to be independent and maintain relationships that were important to them.
People received support that was individual to them and they were involved with the development of their support plans and care. People were supported to follow their interests and were encouraged to give feedback about the support they received. People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints and the provider listened and acted upon these in a timely manner.
People were involved with the development of the service and the shared lives carers and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. People were happy with the support they received from the service. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. This was through feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, staff and a programme of audits. The provider played an active role in quality assurance to drive continuous improvement within the service.
The registered manager told us and we received a notification to inform us that the service had set up a shared lives service in Wolverhampton. At the time of the inspection three shared lives carers had been recruited for this area.
We spoke with the registered manager, two care co-ordinators and four shared lives carers. We spoke with two people who used the service.
One person who used the service told us: 'I am happy. I like to do what I want'.
We found that the care and welfare needs of people who used the service were being met.
One shared lives carer told us: 'I get regular calls from my care co-ordinator. I go to healthcare professionals when I need advice'.
We looked at how the service supported people to manage their medication by looking at protocols, support and guidance in place.
We found that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Effective recruitment and selection processes were in place.
We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
We found that people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.
People who lived or stayed at the adult placements that we spoke with gave positive feedback about their placement.
One person told us, 'I like my carer. I got to choose the placement and met with the carer before I started. I am always out doing things".
Carers we spoke with told us they had appropriate training to undertake their work competently and had good support from PSS Adult Placement (Staffordshire).
One carer told us, 'I cannot say anything bad about them. The matching process has been fantastic. They are very approachable and very supportive'.
We looked at five key outcomes to establish whether people were involved and participated in the service they received; whether care was provided appropriately; whether the service could adequately ensure people's safety; whether carers were adequately supported in their role and whether there was a system for ensuring ongoing quality assurance within the service.
PSS Adult Placement (Staffordshire) was compliant in all five outcome areas.
We requested information from the provider and have spoken to some carers to check that the action plan has been completed.
We saw that new medication processes were in place and that carers had been trained in medication. The provider was also undertaking regular monitoring of medication records to make sure that people were receiving their medication as prescribed.
People who used the service said they were involved in planning their care. They took part in assessments of their needs and worked with staff to put together their care plan and to identify the type of placement that would meet their needs. They took part in reviews of their care and their views were sought about the carers who supported them. People who needed it had advocates so their views could be heard.
People were provided with information about prospective carers and visited them before deciding if they wanted to stay there. People told us they liked living with their carers.
Carers supported people to make choices about their lives. People who use the service were encouraged to take part in a range of activities of their choice. One person told us how they 'liked snooker and swimming'. People told us they were supported to access health care support including primary and secondary health care services.
The service sought the views of the people that use it. For example they spoke to them prior to a carer's annual review and they completed an annual survey about their experiences.
People told us that they would tell someone if they were unhappy. For example one person said they would text their advocate and another said that if they were hurt they would go to the police.