Lifeways Community Care (New Barnet)

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.
 

This service scored 54 (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 did not always ensure people were central to their care or consistently work in partnership with them when needs changed.

Although many people were supported in ways that reflected their individual routines, preferences and communication styles, this varied across locations. Some relatives said staff knew people well and respected their choices, but others reported limited stimulation, inconsistent activities, and insufficient involvement in care planning. Communication was also variable; while some relatives felt well updated, others said they were only contacted when social workers arranged meetings and were not routinely informed of changes.

Comments included, “We are always informed of any changes to what’s going on. We have regular contact with the few carers [person] has. When we pop into see them, they update me and ask if it’s ok if they can purchase things.” Another relative said, “The only meetings we have is when the social worker calls for them. Otherwise, there’s no input. The local authority knows this. I am not informed of any changes.”

The provider’s care planning processes were inconsistent across locations and whilst the level of detail written about people had improved, some support plans were found to contain conflicting information. Although staff often understood people’s needs well in practice, this knowledge was not always reliably reflected or updated in written records.

Staff we spoke with confidently spoke about people they supported. A staff member told us, “[Person] likes [named pop star]. They will instruct staff what food they like, we offer options and [person] tells us how they like it. We make sure we give them time to respond and we respect their wishes.”

The provider did not always understand the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined up.

For example, agency staff were still unable to access the electronic care records system, leaving them reliant on paper-based information and creating gaps between electronic and paper documentation, increased the risk of inconsistencies and omissions. We also found instances where important clinical information had not been followed up or integrated into support plans, such as a consultant letter containing guidance that had not been actioned or recorded. These examples showed that systems designed to support coordinated and continuous care were not always used effectively across locations.

However, we did observe examples where staff supported people to attend routine health and screening appointments, showing that some aspects of integrated care were in place.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats tailored to people’s individual communication needs. Staff followed the Accessible Information Standard, identifying and recording people’s requirements and ensuring information was shared in ways they could understand.

Staff spoke of a range of communication tools they used, including picture boards, picture cards, visual prompts and accessible formats such as large print and easy‑read materials. Staff also adapted their communication styles, using simple language and recognising non‑verbal cues to support people effectively.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Although a complaints procedure was in place to respond promptly to issues, we received mixed feedback about how senior managers handled concerns.

Some people and relatives told us individual staff were caring and tried to listen, but the systems in place for involving people, keeping them updated and ensuring meaningful communication were inconsistent and did not always support people to be actively involved in their care. One person told us, “I do complain but they do not always listen to me and I have to compromise,” while a relative said, “I am happy to raise any concerns.”

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did not always experience equity in access to services, support or opportunities across locations. The feedback we received highlighted inconsistencies in how people were supported to access the community and activities. In some services, people were supported regularly to engage in meaningful activities, while in others access was more limited.

Incomplete documentation, outdated care plans, and a lack of clear guidance contributed to inequitable access to information and decision‑making. These inconsistencies meant people did not always receive fair and equal access to the support necessary to meet their individual needs and preferences.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. However, more worked remained to ensure consistency across all locations.

Staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using the service.

People’s and relatives’ experiences varied. Some relatives described consistent care, while others reported delays, poor communication and unmet needs. One relative told us, “I have records of me trying to get hold of them.” Another said, “Staff need to be more proactive. Encourage [person] to do more activities.”

Despite this, we also received positive feedback, with one relative telling us, “The carer is very good with [person]. They go to the cinema after seeing the dentist.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of the inspection there was no one currently receiving end of life care.

Support plans did not always include meaningful or up‑to‑date information about planning for the future. In several cases, people’s aspirations, goals and long‑term wishes were either minimally recorded, not reviewed, or not supported by clear actions. Some support plans did contain some information about consulting families about their future wishes nearer the time, chasing a lasting wishes document from families or in some cases a blank document. There was minimal evidence of conversations with people or their relatives about any preferences or wishes they might have related to their future wishes.