Kirklees Shared Lives

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
 

This service scored 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to learning from safety concerns and improving practice. Where issues were identified, action was taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. For example, following concerns relating to medicines management, records were reviewed, advice was sought from healthcare professionals and changes were made to medication administration processes.
Learning from incidents, monitoring activity and professional advice was used to inform practice and improve safety. The provider had also worked with specialist professionals, including a lead pharmacist, when developing medicines policies and procedures. This helped ensure arrangements reflected current guidance and supported the safe delivery of care.
 

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.
The provider had highly effective systems in place to ensure people were safely matched with Shared Lives carers who could meet their individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Referrals were subject to detailed assessment involving people, families and professionals to ensure a thorough understanding of support needs before placements were agreed.
To support this process, the registered manager had developed a carer availability brochure containing information about carers' skills, experience, areas of expertise, home environment and accessibility. This enabled assessment teams to make more informed referrals and helped ensure people were matched with carers whose skills, values and living arrangements were compatible with their needs.
Records demonstrated that matching decisions were carefully considered and contributed to positive outcomes for people. For example, 1 person successfully transitioned from foster care into a Shared Lives arrangement. Through careful planning and a person-centred matching process, the individual developed confidence, independence, employment skills and greater autonomy, while maintaining important relationships with people who mattered to them. This demonstrated how robust pathways and matching arrangements supported safe, stable and successful long-term outcomes for people.
 

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to safeguard people from abuse and harm.
Shared Lives carers had received safeguarding training and were able to describe their responsibilities for recognising and reporting concerns. Safeguarding was regularly discussed during monitoring visits, providing ongoing opportunities to reinforce carers' understanding of safeguarding procedures and responsibilities.
Safeguarding concerns were managed appropriately, with records demonstrating incidents were documented clearly and referrals made to the local authority safeguarding team and other relevant agencies where required. This helped to ensure concerns were responded to promptly and people remained protected from the risk of harm.
Professionals spoke positively about the team's safeguarding knowledge and told us concerns were appropriately reported and escalated when required. They described the team's close knowledge of carers and households as helping them identify and share relevant information to support safeguarding enquiries.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.
People were involved in decisions about risks associated with their care and support and were encouraged to maintain their independence wherever possible. Risk assessments were developed and reviewed to reflect people's individual needs and circumstances, helping to balance safety with people's rights, choices and preferences.
We saw examples where people were supported to take positive risks and continue accessing activities and opportunities that were important to them. For example, 1 person regularly accessed the local community but had recently had a fall whilst outside. A formal trips and falls risk assessment had not yet been completed, however, the Shared Lives carer demonstrated a detailed understanding of the person's needs and the support required to keep them safe. Appropriate referrals had been made to relevant professionals, including occupational therapists, to obtain specialist advice and further reduce risks.
Risk management arrangements focused on enabling people to live as independently as possible rather than restricting opportunities. This helped ensure people could remain involved in decisions about their lives while receiving the support needed to manage risks safely.
 

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
Although we do not regulate individual Shared Lives households, we visited people living with their Shared Lives carers and observed that homes were clean, well maintained and suitable for people's needs. People who received personal care had access to personalised bedrooms and the equipment required to support the delivery of safe care and treatment.
We saw examples of homes being adapted to meet people's individual needs. In one home, carers had a purpose-built extension to provide a dedicated living space for the person they supported. This included a personalised bedroom, sensory equipment, a quiet lounge area and laundry facilities. Although some clinical equipment and medication storage was required within the space to support the person's health needs, the environment remained homely, personalised and reflective of the person's preferences.
Environmental risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to ensure risks within the home environment were identified and managed appropriately. This helped to ensure people lived in safe, comfortable and accessible environments that promoted their wellbeing and independence.
 

The provider had exceptional systems in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced Shared Lives carers available to meet people's needs.

Recruitment processes were thorough and robust. In addition to standard employment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, references and employment history verification, prospective Shared Lives carers underwent a comprehensive assessment process within their own homes. This included multiple visits by shared lives assessors, in-depth discussions, observations and assessments to ensure applicants had the values, skills and commitment required to provide high-quality care and support.
People benefited from support provided by carers who were highly knowledgeable about their individual needs and circumstances. Carers demonstrated a detailed understanding of the people they supported and were able to describe how they adapted their approach to meet complex health, emotional and social care needs.
The provider encouraged carers to undertake additional learning beyond mandatory requirements. We saw examples of carers developing specialist knowledge to support people with complex health conditions. For example, some carers worked directly alongside diabetes and epilepsy specialist nurses to develop their understanding of people's conditions and treatment requirements. This enabled carers to build expertise and confidence in supporting people with highly individual and complex needs.
Feedback, observations and records demonstrated that carers had the skills, knowledge and competence required to provide safe, effective and personalised care. The provider's strong focus on recruitment and ongoing development helped ensure people consistently received high-quality support from carers who knew them exceptionally well.
 

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Effective infection prevention and control (IPC) measures were in place to help protect people from the risk of infection. The provider carried out regular audits and environmental checks to ensure homes remained clean, safe and suitable for the delivery of care and support.
During visits to people's homes, we observed environments were clean, tidy and well maintained. Shared Lives carers had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and understood when and how it should be used to reduce the risk of cross-infection.
Monitoring arrangements helped ensure good standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained, supporting people's health, safety and wellbeing.

 

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.
We found some shortfalls in medicines management which meant we could not be fully assured people always received their medicines in line with prescribed instructions. People's medicines administration records were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed to support safe administration, and systems in place were not effective to identify and address these issues. We found examples where medicines had not been administered in the way prescribed, which had not been identified through the provider's checks or audits. Immediate action was taken by the provider to address these concerns when they were identified.
When medicines were prescribed on a variable dose or 'when required' basis, person-centred guidance was not always available to support staff to administer them consistently and in line with prescribers' intentions. This increased the risk of variation in how these medicines were given.
However, people generally received their medicines safely and there was no evidence anyone had experienced harm as a result of these shortfalls. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's medicines and support needs. Appropriate medicines policies and procedures were in place, staff had received medicines training, and medicines were stored safely. Following the assessment, the provider acted promptly to strengthen medicines systems and processes, improve record keeping and support greater consistency in medicines management.