Brent Shared Lives

Updated 18 March 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a shared lives scheme, they recruit, train and support self-employed shared lives carers (SLC) who offer accommodation and support arrangements for vulnerable adults within their own family homes in the community.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 12 members of staff including the nominated individual, supplier relationship manager, five placement relationship officers (PRO), and three carers.

We reviewed a range of records. This included nine people’s care records and multiple medicines records. We looked at five staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We spoke with the registered manager on his return from leave.

Updated 18 March 2020

About the service

Brent Shared Lives Scheme provides personal care for people as part of a shared lives scheme. A shared lives scheme supports a variety of different arrangements where families and individuals in local communities can offer accommodation and/or support for people. At this inspection, they were providing a regulated activity for 19 people.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Carers had received up-to-date safeguarding training and they knew how to identify and report concerns. There were effective systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. Carers had been recruited using appropriate checks and thorough assessments. There were systems in place to ensure proper and safe use of medicines. Effective processes were in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination. The service reviewed accidents and incidents to minimise reoccurrences of risk.

People's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this. People confirmed their care was tailored to their needs. There were arrangements to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met. People’s care was co-ordinated with a range of health and social care professionals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. When people were unable to make decisions about their care and support, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed.

People were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care. The service invested time to know people well and involved them in decisions about their care. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Individual care plans considered people’s values, beliefs, and wishes. This meant there were established ways of working which were person centred and not discriminatory.

People’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. We observed a range of practices that reflected person centred care. The service considered people’s choices and expressed needs. Families were involved as appropriate and people’s values were respected. People had access to appropriate care and information, which was presented in an accessible way. Support plans were regularly reviewed to monitor whether care was up to date and reflected people’s current needs. We discussed with the supplier relationship manager the need to develop more creative ways to explore people’s choices and preferences regarding their end of life care.

The service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. The registered manager had a sense of responsibility. There was a quality assurance process, which allowed the service to monitor its performance against standards to be achieved. Information to measure quality was collected in several ways, including audits, complaints, accidents and incidents and surveys. This information was used to drive improvements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was 'Good' (published 06 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.