Islington Council Shared Lives

Updated 13 March 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 3 and 17 December 2018 and was carried out by one inspector. Our first visit was to speak with the manager and staff as well as review records. Our second visit was arranged with the helpful assistance of the service to meet with people using the service and Shared Lives carers. Before the inspection we looked at the information we had about the service. We reviewed the completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we looked at notifications that we had received and any communications we had with people about the service. This included the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams as well as other health and social care professionals.

We gathered evidence of people’s experiences by talking with four people using the service, nine Shared Lives carers, one care co-ordinator and the authority’s head of in house provider services. We also received e mails with feedback from four carers who were unable to attend the feedback event that we held.

As part of this inspection we reviewed five people’s care plans. We looked at the medicines management, staff training records [including Shared Lives carers], appraisal and supervision records for the staff team. We reviewed other records such as complaints information, quality monitoring, audit information and safety records.

Updated 13 March 2019

Islington Council Adult Placement Shared Lives Scheme provides long term or short break placements for adults with learning disabilities or mental health problems within family homes. The families provide the day to day care and support to the adults who are placed with them. At the time of our inspection 14 people were using the shared lives and 7 people were using the short breaks service.

The service is run by Islington Council social services department. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The inspection took place on 3 and 17 December 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a community based care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to speak with us. At our previous inspection on 8 January 2016 the provider met all of the legal requirements we looked at.

At our last inspection on 9 and 12 May 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and Shared Lives carers told us they felt safe using the service and no one had any concerns about letting someone know if they ever felt unsafe. There were detailed procedures in place for responding to any care and welfare concerns and we noted none had been raised since our previous inspection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People who used the service had a variety of support needs. In all cases people were enabled to maximise the degree of autonomy and independence they could exercise in living their day to day lives. Any risks associated with people’s needs were assessed and the action needed to reduce risks was recorded. Risk assessments were updated regularly and did not place restrictive limitations on the reasonable risks that people were free to take.

Staff and Shar3ed Lives carers [these were the people providing support for people in their own home or in the community] respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated there was diligence at ensuring this. People’s preferences about how they wanted to be supported were recorded and carers worked very well at respecting these preferences and enabling freedom of choice. There was a continuing commitment to promote independence and community involvement which was not restricted by procedures or systems. Invariably people believed that the service was very caring, and a lot of trust existed between people using the service, family carers and staff working for the service. The ethos of care and support is notable across the service and underpins the way in which the service promotes shared lives as a positive model of care.

Care plans were compiled in a way that demonstrated these were designed to reflect each person’s unique personal needs and lifestyle. The appropriate guidance for meeting each person’s needs was in place and care was regularly reviewed.

The training records of staff and Shared Lives carers showed that training considered mandatory by the provider had been undertaken and the type of specialised training they required was tailored to the needs of the people they were supporting. We found that staff supervision was regular. Shared Lives carers had readily available access to support as and when they needed this aside from times they were visited by staff of the service or attending planned carer meetings.

The comments people made demonstrated that people were able to complain and felt confident to approach staff and management of the service if they needed to.

People who used the service, Shared Lives carers and stakeholders had a range of opportunities to provide their views about the quality of the service. Their views about how the service was run were respected and were taken seriously.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.