Certitude London Shared Lives

Not everyone using the shared lives scheme received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'.

This inspection was conducted by 2 adult social care inspectors and was announced. As part of this comprehensive inspection we looked at all 5 key questions and the 33 related quality statements.

The last rating for the scheme under the previous provider was good [published 28 June 2018].

We were prompted to inspect due the age of the schemes previous rating.

Based on the findings of this inspection the scheme remains rated good overall.

We have assessed the scheme against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The Shared Lives scheme was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.

The scheme made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced coordinators, who received effective support, supervision and development however, some shared lives carers had not kept all their mandatory training up to date.

Shared Lives managers, coordinators and carers worked in close partnership to support and keep the people placed by the scheme safe. They understood and managed risk well. The scheme routinely monitored people’s care to continuously improve it. This ensured outcomes were positive and consistent.

The scheme treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. People’s independence and choices were promoted, so people knew their rights and had control over their own care and wellbeing.

Carer’s homes were routinely assessed to ensure they remained a safe environment for people to live. Coordinators and carers were recruited safely. Medicines and Infection risks were safely managed.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. The scheme routinely reviewed assessments with people they supported taking account of their communication, personal and health care needs and wishes. The scheme understood people's cultural and spiritual needs and wishes and took this into account when matching people with a suitable carer and/or their family. The scheme enabled people to access specialist health and social care support in the community. They continually monitored people’s health to support healthy living. The scheme ensured people understood their care and support needs which enabled them to give informed consent. They took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity and involved all the relevant people and bodies. People were supported to be involved in decisions about their care.

The scheme always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their coordinators and the Shared Lives carers and was good at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care and support to people. Coordinators, carers and people placed by the scheme received fair and equal care and treatment.

The scheme were good at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service was good at fostering a positive culture where people knew they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The scheme gave people opportunities to pursue their social interests and try new activities that enriched their lives. People were treated as individuals. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends.

The scheme clearly understood and carried out their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for people. They always share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. The schemes management were visible, knowledgeable and supportive of coordinators, carers and the people they had placed. The scheme had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Governance systems were well-established and operated effectively. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Records were well-maintained and managed by the coordinators and carers. The scheme had a good learning culture of improvement and inclusivity which had led to coordinators, carers and people placed by the scheme experiencing positive outcomes.