You are here

Adult Placement Scheme/Shared Lives Scheme Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The inspection took place on 10 October 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 72 hours’ notice because the location provides shared lives care and support and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office. At our previous inspection during February 2014 the provider was not meeting all the regulations we checked. At this inspection improvements had been made and recruitment checks were thorough with all the required pre-employment checks in place.

The Adult Placement/Shared Lives Scheme is run by Derby City Council and monitors shared lives carers to provide support to adults with learning disabilities. This support can be on a short or long term basis where the person lives with the shared lives carer in their home as part of the family. Day support is also provided where the person is supported by the shared lives carer during the day to access activities in the community. The shared lives scheme office is located in Derby City Centre. At the time of this inspection 70 people received support from shared lives carers recruited by the scheme.

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.

Shared lives carers we spoke with had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to provide safe care and report safeguarding concerns. Shared lives carers went through an intensive recruitment process before becoming approved as a shared lives carers. This ensured suitable shared lives carers were employed to work with people who used the service. Shared lives carers told us they had received training which helped them to understand and support people better.

People received support from sufficient numbers of shared lives carers. Shared lives carers responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they supported people safely with their medicines.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people who used the service. People had care plans in place, however the shared lives carers told us this were not always detailed. The registered manager acknowledged that this had been picked up in an internal audit. They told us they would be taking action to address this.

The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Shared lives carers supported people to make their own decisions. However shared lives carers told us they had not undertaken training in this area, which they told us had been booked.

We saw people were treated with dignity and respect by shared lives carers. Shared lives carers described how they aimed to promote people's independence. The delivery of care was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and preferences.

People received appropriate support to manage their dietary needs. This was done in a way that met with their needs and choices. People were supported to have good health, for example shared lives carers supported people to health appointments.

The provider ensured people had access to information about how to make a complaint or express a concern about the service. People received responsive and personalised care and were involved in planning their support.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the manager and provider to drive improvement. Shared lives carers felt supported by the Adult Placement Scheme/Shared Lives Scheme staff. The leadership and management of the service and its governance systems ensured consistency in the care being provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse because shared lives workers and shared lives carers understood their responsibilities to protect them from harm. People had care plans and risk assessments providing guidance about how to keep people safe, however these were not always detailed. There were sufficient numbers of shared lives carers deployed to meet people’s needs. The provider had appropriate recruitment procedures in place to ensure shared lives carers were suitable to work with people who used the service. Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by shared lives carers who were sufficiently skilled and experienced to support them. The registered provider was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) People were supported to have good health and nutrition.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was caring.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted by the shared lives carers. People were involved in what care and support they required and their views and decisions were respected. Information about Independent advocacy services was available for people should they have required this support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care, responsive to their needs and were involved in planning and reviewing what support they needed. The views of people and their preferences were respected. The provider’s complaints policy and procedure was accessible to people and they were supported to raise any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was well led.

The registered manager demonstrated an open management and leadership style and was involved in reviewing the development of the service. Shared lives carers understood their roles and responsibilities. They were given guidance and support by the staff at the scheme. Systems and processes to check on the quality and safety of the service were in place. The registered manager recognised where the service needed to improve and was committed to making improvements.