Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Leicestershire Shared Lives Scheme, Room 600, County Hall, Leicester Road, Glenfield, Leicester.

Leicestershire Shared Lives Scheme in Room 600, County Hall, Leicester Road, Glenfield, Leicester is a Shared live specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, personal care, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 21st March 2019

Leicestershire Shared Lives Scheme is managed by Leicestershire County Council who are also responsible for 9 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Leicestershire Shared Lives Scheme
      Adults and Communities
      Room 600
      County Hall
      Leicester Road
      Glenfield
      Leicester
      LE3 8RL
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01163059240

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-03-21
    Last Published 2019-03-21

Local Authority:

    Leicestershire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

31st January 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

About the service:

Leicestershire Shared Lives recruits, trains and monitors carers who are paid a fee to provide care and support to adults. The person lives with the carer in the carer's home. People who use the service are provided with short and long term accommodation with care in family homes.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ People had received safe care. The registered provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure carers were suitable for their role. An induction process was in place with training and comprehensive written guidance via handbooks and records ensuring care was based on current practice. Carers and support officers had been provided with safeguarding training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them. People’s medicines were managed safely. Systems were in place to ensure that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

¿ People received enough to eat and drink and were supported to use and access a variety of other services and social care professionals. People were supported to access health appointments when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and carers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

¿ People’s needs were assessed and planned with the involvement of the person and or their relative or representative where required.

¿ Carers and support officers promoted and respected people's cultural diversity and lifestyle choices. Care plans were personalised and provided staff with guidance about how to support people and respect their wishes. Information was made available in accessible formats such as easy read and pictorial to help people understand the care and support they could expect and what they were agreeing to.

¿ People received care from carers who were kind. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted. People had developed positive relationships with carers who had a good understanding of their needs and preferences.

¿ The manager and provider had a clear vison and plan in place for continuous learning, improvement and growth. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service. Carers and support officers received supervision and regular meetings took place that gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information. The manager understood their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to the CQC and external agencies.

More information is in the full report

Rating at last inspection: Good 18 June 2016

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled Inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any information of concern is received, we may inspect sooner.

9th May 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected the service on 9 and 10 May 2016 and the visit was announced. We gave notice of our visit because we needed to be sure somebody would be available at the office.

The Leicestershire Shared Lives Scheme arranges accommodation and support to people to live independent lives. The support is provided by individuals in the community, known as shared lives carers (carers) who use their own homes as a base. Shared lives support can include long term accommodation and / or a short breaks service. At the time of our inspection 102 people were receiving care and support. Shared lives workers (staff) are employed by the provider to provide support and guidance to carers.

The service had a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. 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.

People felt safe and they were being protected from harm and abuse by staff and carers who knew their responsibilities. For example, people’s homes and equipment were being checked by the provider to protect them from harm. Risks to people’s health and well-being had been assessed to support them to remain safe.

People’s individual needs had been considered to keep them safe during an emergency and the provider had a plan in place to make sure that the service would continue in the event of a significant event.

The provider sought to keep people safe by analysing accidents and incidents. They had looked to reduce the number of these whenever possible. For example, where a person’s level of support needed to increase due to their mental health, guidance from a social worker had been requested.

People were being supported by staff who had been checked before they had started to work for the provider. This had helped the provider to make safer recruitment decisions. When a member of the public had applied to become a carer, we found that there was a thorough process in place to check their suitability.

People received the support they required with their medicines. Staff and carers had received training to support them to handle medicines safely and there was written guidance available to them to provide safe support to people.

People received support from carers and staff who had undertaken training. However, for some staff and carers there were gaps in the required training. For example, some needed training in safeguarding people from abuse. The registered manager told us that they were addressing this.

Staff and carers received support and guidance in order to understand their responsibilities. For example, carers had regular visits from staff members. The registered manager provided staff with regular meetings to support them to carry out their roles effectively.

People’s consent to care and treatment had not always been recorded. The provider had not always undertaken assessments where people may have lacked the capacity to make decisions. This meant that the provider was not always following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were being supported by staff and carers who understood the requirements of the MCA. They were able to describe how they would seek additional support if they had concerns about people’s ability to make decisions for themselves.

People chose the food they wanted. Their eating and drinking preferences and needs were known by carers. People were also being supported to remain healthy. Staff and carers knew how to do this and information about people’s health needs was available in their support plans. Where there was concern about people’s health, staff and carers knew what to do and took the appropriate action.

People were supported by carers who showed ki

31st January 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We did not speak with people who used the service at this visit. Please see our previous report for details of what people told us about the service they received.

Our inspection of 4 September 2012 found that the service did not have a robust system that identified how it had matched a person to a shared lives carer. Therefore, there may have been the risk of people receiving inappropriate or unsafe care due to an inadequate matching process. We also found there was limited evidence that people’s views had been gathered and therefore the service could not demonstrate how it was taking these into account when planning the delivery of care. In addition we found that placement reviews were not consistently happening and as a result there was no robust monitoring system to ensure people were protected from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care.

At this inspection we found that the provider had made sufficient improvements to achieve compliance with the regulations.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

As part of the inspection we spoke with the registered manager and a shared lives worker. We also visited two shared lives carers and the people they supported in their own homes. We looked at numerous records including people’s care records, staff records, and records in relation to the management of the service.

Shared lives carers were positive about the service and appreciated all the support that shared lives workers provided. We observed that people who used the service had an excellent relationship with their shared lives carer and appeared comfortable and relaxed in their homes.

We looked at the records of four people who used the service and found the service had ensured people were placed with an appropriate shared lives carer and that the placement had been monitored. We found that support had been planned and delivered appropriately with regard to people’s health and safety and in accordance with their wishes.

Shared lives carers had a good understanding of the needs of people they cared for and had received support and monitoring visits from a shared lives worker. However, the service had not always ensured that shared lives carers had received on-going training to assist them in their roles.

There was an appropriate complaints handling process in place and records had been stored securely and were well maintained.

 

 

Latest Additions: