Lifeways Community Care (New Barnet)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to treating people with respect. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.
 

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had systems in place and clear expectations around ensuring they treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity. However, more work was needed to ensure effective oversight to demonstrate all staff consistently supported people in a caring and respectful way.

Incidents had been reported to the CQC which showed the provider taking action to formally address poor staff practice and behaviours in some SLSs. Feedback was mixed across services. Some relatives reported variability in staff approach, particularly where there were high levels of staff turnover, which affected consistency. One relative told us, “Some staff are caring, but you really need to get to know [person].” reflecting that newer staff sometimes struggled to understand the person’s needs or preferred ways of communicating. Others felt care was dependent on which staff were on shift, noting differences in compassion and attentiveness.

Most relatives told us that staff were kind, patient and respectful towards the people they supported. Several family members described warm and positive relationships, highlighting staff who took time to understand people’s individual communication styles and emotional needs. One relative told us, “They calm them down when [person] refuses to shower, they run to the staff and hug them. They hug [person] back.” Another relative said staff were “Very friendly and kind. They are accommodating,” while others noted that staff respected people’s dignity by providing personal care in private and supporting them sensitively with their routines.

Overall, while many staff demonstrated kindness, compassion and respect in their day to day interactions, these positive experiences were not consistent across all services. Variability in staff continuity and oversight meant that people did not always experience a consistently caring approach that upheld their dignity at all times.

The provider had policies and systems in place which had expectations that people were treated as individuals and receive care, support and treatment which met people’s needs and preferences. However, they could not demonstrate this was being adhered to consistently across all services.

Staff generally demonstrated an understanding that each person had their own preferences, routines and ways of communicating, and many relatives told us staff made efforts to recognise and respond to these individual differences. For example, relatives described staff who understood people’s unique communication styles, including body language, signs or gestures, and adapted their approach to help people feel reassured and understood. Some relatives shared positive examples of staff supporting people to express themselves, such as encouraging involvement in household tasks, respecting choices around personal routines, and responding sensitively when people became anxious or distressed.

However, this was not consistent across all services. Variation in staff experience, turnover, and familiarity with individuals meant that not everyone always received care that fully reflected their personal identity, preferences or aspirations. In some cases, relatives told us newer or agency staff did not always recognise what was important to the person or how best to support them, which at times led to frustration or reduced engagement. This highlighted the need for more consistent oversight, better use of personalised support plans, and ongoing staff development to ensure people were consistently treated as individuals whose needs and preferences shaped their daily care.

The provider did not always consistently promote people’s independence, choice and control.

Relatives shared mixed experiences about how well people were supported to take part in activities and access the community. Some relatives told us people had activities they enjoyed, such as going for short walks, visiting local shops, attending day centres, going to the cinema, and spending time with family. Others said they felt there was not enough variety or stimulation, with some people spending long periods in their rooms, becoming bored, or having limited structured activities during the week. A few relatives also said community access depended heavily on what staff were on duty, which sometimes meant plans were restricted or cancelled. Where people preferred to stay at home or became anxious going out, staff generally respected this and adapted activities around the person’s preferences.

We saw evidence and staff told us activities and community access was being promoted by the provider across all services. A staff member told us, “This is really encouraged, it is client’s choice, we go by their history, what they like and what is in the support plan. We have activities plans we follow. Most use public transport, we are looking into mobility cars. We do follow their choices and preferences.”

During our inspection we saw examples of people being supported to be as independent as they could be, with staff involving them with their day-to-day tasks. In 1 location a person was baking in the kitchen, we observed another person taking their laundry back to their flat.

Relatives described staff as generally responsive to people’s immediate needs, particularly when they understood the person well and recognised their body language, or changes in behaviour. Many relatives said staff acted quickly when someone needed support with personal care, hydration, or support during periods of distress, and some noted that staff provided reassurance, encouragement and adapted their approach in a calm, supportive way to help the person feel safe and comfortable

However, several relatives felt that responses were inconsistent, depending on which staff were on shift and how well they knew the person. In some cases, relatives said they had to push for action or remind staff when a need had not been picked up promptly, such as managing boredom, supporting with activities, or escalating concerns to health professionals. Overall, while staff often responded with kindness and patience, relatives highlighted that greater consistency would help ensure people’s immediate needs were always recognised and acted upon without delay.

The provider had a strong commitment to caring for and promoting the wellbeing of staff, recognising that a supported workforce is essential for delivering high-quality, person-centred care. However, more consistency was needed to ensure improvements were sustained.

Staff we spoke with told us they were feeling more supported than before, particularly since new managers have encouraged more structured activities and responsive supervision, helping them feel listened to and valued. This support contributed to a culture where staff felt more able to raise issues, seek guidance, and participate in problem‑solving.

A staff member told us, “Before now I did not feel supported, since [service manager] started who is very effective, they listen to us. [Service manager] lets us know any feedback, there are lots of changes for the better.” Another staff member said, “In the last 3 months I am supported by the area manager, we also have support from [another area manager]. They talk to us. It has improved a lot. [Location name] has had great improvement; we are following up on everything. Everything is getting checked. A lot of improvements. We work together and things are really improving.”

There had been significant and frequent leadership changes particularly at service manager level and work was still needed to sustain and embed consistent leaders across all locations. Whilst service managers were working towards improvements, we were aware there were still permanent vacancies to be filled. This meant not all staff were assured this additional support would be sustained. A staff member said, “We do get supervision, sometimes I feel supported but not 100%. I have spoken to [area manager] about an issue, not sure what they did about it, they have not communicated this to me.”