We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brent Shared Lives 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 Brent Shared Lives, you can give feedback on this 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.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] 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.
At the last inspection on 27 January 2015, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People's health and social care needs had been appropriately assessed. Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences were documented and carers we spoke with were aware of people's likes and dislikes. Care plans were reviewed and were updated when people's needs changed.
Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. Carers had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.
Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. Arrangements were in place for the recording of medicines, administration and disposal.
Carers had been carefully recruited and provided with induction and training to enable them to support people effectively. They had the necessary support, supervision and appraisals from management.
Carers we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Capacity to make specific decisions was recorded in people's care plans.
People were supported with the nutritional and hydration needs. Carers were aware of people’s dietary requirements and the support they needed with their food and drink.
Carers told us that they received up to date information about the service and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at team meetings.
There was a management structure in place with a team of carers, two case workers, the registered manager and the provider. Carers spoke positively about working for the service.
Feedback about the service was sought through questionnaires. Feedback was generally positive about the service people received. However, there were no robust audits in place to assess and evaluate the service to ensure areas were being effectively managed and areas of improvement identified.
We undertook an announced inspection on the 27 January 2015 of Brent Shared Lives (BSL). This was to ensure staff were available to assist with our inspection. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. At our last inspection on 21 February 2014 the service met the regulations inspected.
BSL trains and supports shared lives carers (carers) who provide personal care and support for people within their own family homes and community to enable people to live as independently as possible. At the time of the inspection, BSL was supporting 29 people who lived in family homes and 32 approved carers. BSL caters for adults who have a disability or for older adults with care needs. The service also employed 2 case workers.
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.
The service had taken steps to help ensure people using the service were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. There were safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place and records showed carers had received training in how to safeguard adults. When speaking to carers, they demonstrated an awareness of the importance of people not being subjected to abuse and neglect. Carers were aware of the different types of abuse and actions to take in response to a suspected abuse.
Risks to people were identified and managed so that people were safe and their freedom supported and protected. Risk taking plans were completed for people using the service. Each plan had identified the risk and measures to manage the risk and were individualised to people’s needs and requirements but also physical and emotional well being.
There were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place to ensure people were safe and not at risk of being supported by people who were unsuitable. Carers were assessed and the application then handed to an independent panel to review. The registered manager told us the aim was to ensure they matched the person using the service to the most suitable and appropriate carer for them. Records showed that the carers home environment and circumstances were also assessed for suitability. The carers undertook a Skills for Care induction training and then are monitored for six months. Carers are then appointed after a successful probationary period.
People were cared for and supported by carers that were supported to have the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Carers spoke positively about their experiences working for BSL.
Carers had a good understanding and were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity. Carers also understood what privacy and dignity meant in relation to supporting people with personal care.
The service supported people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support where possible. Records showed there were meetings between people using the service, the carer and the case workers. People’s support plans detailed how people communicated and specific gestures they used so carers were able to understand what people wanted.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. People’s care preferences, personal habits and daily routines were also reflected. The service encouraged and prompted people’s independence. Daily skills such as being involved with household chores were encouraged to enable people to do tasks they were able to do by themselves.
People were supported to follow their interests, take part in them and maintain links with the wider community. Support plans showed people were encouraged and supported to go to college, look for work and engage in fitness activities such as swimming. People were also involved in activities such as attending a day centre, walks, gardening, shopping and community outings
People were supported to visit family and friends or receive visitors and were supported and encouraged with maintaining relationships with family members.
There was a clear management structure in place with a team of two case workers, registered manager and Head of Service. Carers spoke positively about the management and culture of BSL.
Records showed staff meetings were being held and that the staff had the opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. The service had a system in place to obtain feedback about the quality of the service people received, identify and act upon areas for improvement.