- Homecare service
Lifeways Paragon Limited
Assessment report published 24 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment – 23 September to 29 October 2025. Site visits to the office of the provider and visits to 6 homes where people supported by the service lived. were made during the assessment. This was a responsive assessment based on intelligence CQC held about the service and potential risk. During the assessment, 5 regulatory breaches were found in respect of safe care and treatment including medicines, the need for consent, person centred care, staffing and good governance.
Lifeways Paragon Limited provides support with personal care to approximately 73 people living in their own homes. Some homes were shared accommodation. Some people lived with autism and/or a learning disability. We assessed the service against CQC’s ‘Right Culture, right care, right support’ guidance to check if the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability or autism respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider did not comply in full with this guidance.
People’s needs and risks were not properly assessed, and staff did not have accurate and sufficient information on how to care for people safely, or in a person centred way. People’s care did not always adhere to best practice guidance. There were gaps in the delivery of people’s care, and some people received care and treatment which was unsafe or insufficient.
The management of medicines was not safe. People did not always receive the medicines they needed at the right time or in a safe way to prevent ill-health or the unwanted symptoms of the conditions the medicines were prescribed to treat.
The provider did not have a robust system in place to determine safe staffing levels at night. We found they has also not acted upon important information from a fire consultant who raised concerns about night time staffing levels in one home which they stated may cause a ‘substantial risk to life’ in the event of an emergency. Some staff also told us they felt staffing levels in some homes needed improvement to be able to support people appropriately.
People’s consent was not always obtained in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Records in relation to Deprivation of Liberty safeguarding legislation, designed to protect people’s human rights were poorly maintained making it difficult to tell who was subject to these safeguards at any given time.
The environment in which people lived was adequately maintained by the landlord. We saw the provider reported repairs to the landlord on behalf of people. People were supported to keep their home environment clean and tidy however some relatives raised concerns about aspects of the environment and the timeliness of repairs and maintenance by the landlord.
Infection control standards were maintained appropriately and staff used PPE as and when required.
Staff were recruited safely and had access to an induction and training. However, there were critical gaps in the training of some staff members which raised concerns about their skills, experience and understanding of the needs of the people they supported. Some staff supported people with basic nursing tasks which required delegation by a health care professional for which some staff were not properly trained or supervised. The provider was also not legally registered with CQC to provide support with basic nursing tasks. During our assessment we found professional guidance in relation to this support had not been followed to mitigate risks to people’s health and wellbeing.
Record keeping at the service was inconsistent and unreliable. Governance arrangements to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not robust. The provider and senior management team did not have effective oversight of the service to ensure risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were mitigated.
The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’. The service has been placed in ‘special measures’. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives told us staff looked after them and they liked them. We observed people looked relaxed, happy and comfortable with staff. People gave examples of how they were supported by staff. For example, comments included “Staff come in to shower in case I fall cos it’s slippy, but I wash myself” and, “There’s staff on all the time, they sleep over at night. They’re friendly, they’re like family”. However, during our assessment we found gaps in the support people received which indicated the provider was not ensuring people’s needs were met at all times. We also found one person’s mobility and continence needs were not supported appropriately to maintain their independence or dignity.
People told us they could choose how to spend their time and were encouraged to participate in menu and activity planning. Most people told us they were supported to access social and recreational activities in the community with the support of staff. Comments included, “I go out. I’m in a wheelchair and staff take me. I go the community centre and do karaoke. I like singing. I sing in the shower. There was a meeting a couple of months ago and since then I can’t go out so much”, “She goes shopping with them and choses her food. Sometimes she does baking with them” and “[Name of person] goes for walks, trampolining, climbing wall and on a Friday I go cycling with staff. The person’s relative went on to say, “I am looking for more activities and would like staff to be more proactive”. Records confirmed some people were supported to access social activities. However, we found one person’s ability however to access the community was hindered by a lack of transport. No effective action had been taken by the provider to find alternative meaningful activities or alternative transport. We discussed this with the regional and registered managers of the service.
People and their relatives told us, they were supported to access health and medical appointments. One relative told us “[Name of person] has to go to disability dentist at the hospital. They find doctors very stressful, if I say [name of person] has to go they will take them”. Another said, “Staff take [Name of person] to GP and do their medicines and when [name of person] was in hospital staff stayed with them for a long time which was good”. Whilst we saw evidence people were supported to attend health and medical appointments, we found when professional advice had been given, this advice had not always been followed by staff to mitigate risks to people’s health and wellbeing.
Some people and relatives fed back they did not always know who the manager of the service was suggesting communication with people and their families at times required improvement. Comments included, “‘I don’t know who the manager is they keep changing but some have visited” and “The manager disappeared and I’d been sending them emails about support he needed and getting no answers. Then a week ago a phone call came from a new manager to introduce themselves which was very nice but what happened to the old one is a mystery”.