Archived: Shared Lives

Updated 1 July 2016

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.

We inspected the service on 24 May 2016. The inspection visit was announced and the inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector. The registered provider was given short notice because the location provides a shared lives service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office to assist in the inspection process.

We spent time at the office looking at records. This included three people’s care and support records, two staff recruitment files, three carer recruitment files, policies and procedures and other records relating to the management of the service.

We spoke with the registered manager and two staff members on the day of the inspection. We telephoned three carers and a relative after the inspection and visited two people who used the service. Carers are people who support people on long term, respite care, or sessional work for people who used the service.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included looking at any safeguarding referrals received, whether any complaints had been made and any other information from members of the public. We looked at notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

The registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) as requested. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give key information about the service, for example, what the service does well and any improvements they intend to make.

We contacted the local authority safeguarding and contracts teams for their views on the service and they raised no concerns about the service.

Updated 1 July 2016

We visited the service on 24 May 2016 and we gave short notice to the registered provider prior to our visit to ensure that someone would be available to assist with the inspection process. This service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in August 2014 and this was their first inspection.

The service is managed by VIVO Care Choices Limited to provide long term family support, respite care and sessional support to adults. The scheme currently supports 11 people. People live with carers in the carer’s own homes.

There was a registered manager employed to work at the service and they had been registered for five months. 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.

During discussions with people who used the service and carers we found they did not know who the registered manager was and had not met him. A recommendation was made that he should proactively seek to get to know the people who used the service and their carers.

People told us they were happy and they liked living with their carers. They said “I feel safe” and “I like it here”.

People said they were felt safe with their carers. Staff and carers were aware of safeguarding policies and procedures and had undertaken safeguarding awareness training. The registered manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the implications on people who used the service. Staff had an awareness of the MCA through the induction process and safeguarding training.

There were robust staff recruitment processes in place which meant that people were protected from staff that were unsuitable to work with people who may be deemed vulnerable. Staff had undertaken an induction and had access to supervision sessions, staff meetings and training relevant to their job role.

Care plan documentation was person centred and gave good information about the individual needs of each person. A risk assessment was tailored to each person’s particular requirements. Some people were supported with their medication and these were managed by the carers. All documentation seen was up to date.

People and carers had access to information about the service that included a statement of purpose and this was written in large print to make it easier for people to read. This included the aims of the service, what people could expect to receive and details regarding the registered manager and provider. This meant that people had information about the service that they could refer to.

People who used the service and carers told us that they didn't have any complaints about the service and they would contact the office staff if they had any concerns. A complaints policy was available and processes were in place should a complaint be received. The registered provider had not received any complaints and CQC had also not received any complaints about this service.

Quality assurance processes were in place which included meetings held with carers and annual reviews of people’s care. There were also a range of audits undertaken in relation to the service provided that monitored its safety and effectiveness. These included risk assessments, finances, medication and health and safety. This meant that regular checks were being undertaken to ensure the quality and safety of the service is reviewed and evaluated.