You are here

Archived: Manchester Shared Lives

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 April 2012
Date of Publication: 11 May 2012
Inspection Report published 11 May 2012 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Customers of the scheme experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

User experience

We haven’t been able to speak with people using the service because we were reviewing the compliance of the scheme. However we gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by reviewing completed customer and provider surveys and inspecting how the scheme was monitoring and reviewing the quality of the service provided. We found that people using the service responded favourably about the care and support they received and that when issues were identified they were addressed appropriately.

Other evidence

Manchester Adult Placement Scheme provided a service for people who needed support to live independently and who could do so in the home of individuals or families who were approved providers. The scheme widens the choice of services open to vulnerable people living in the community, giving them the opportunity of experiencing life within another family setting; or receiving informal support in their own home or the community.

The scheme approves providers who support the customers of the scheme as described above. Providers and customers are in turn supported by the support workers and senior managers employed by the scheme.

The care and welfare needs of people who use this service were appropriately assessed and care and support was planned and provided in line with their individual care plan. We examined four individual plans of care during our visit. They provided full details of the assessment processes undertaken prior to the services being undertaken. These had been completed by the prospective customer’s care manager or social worker. Once referred to the scheme the prospective customer was ‘matched’ with a suitable provider. There then followed a process that determined the suitability of the placement of the prospective customer. This process included the involvement of the customer (and their independent advocate if necessary) and included introductory meetings with and visits to the prospective provider. A plan to ensure the customer’s health, social and general welfare needs was developed (in consultation with the customer). This included assessment of any risks that had been identified in the customer’s life and how those risks were to be dealt with in a way that maximised that person’s independence and personal freedom. General and specialised health needs of individual customers were recorded and detailed how the individual was supported to access appropriate health care services.

A documented system of regular review of each placement was in operation. This ensured that the placement of individual remained suitable and appropriate and that there assessed needs continued to be met. It was evident that the views of the individual customer (and their independent advocate if necessary) were central to all such reviews. The participation of the customer’s care manager or social worker, relatives and other interested parties (such as medical or other health care staff) in reviews was also noted.