Lifeways Community Care Leicester (West)

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. We rated this key question as Requires Improvement. This meant people were not always treated with compassion and kindness, dignity and respect.

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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Relatives confirmed staff were kind and caring and treated their loved one with respect. Staff consistently demonstrated kindness, compassion, and respect in their interactions with people. Relationships were warm, and people were supported in ways that reflected their individual preferences. However, staff lacked training and knowledge in communication styles including the use of Makaton, (a form of sign language) cultural backgrounds and understanding neurodiversity and a positive behaviour support approach. This impacted their ability to build trusting relationships and ensure that caring practices are consistent, inclusive, and aligned with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

While staff demonstrated kindness they did not always follow agreed support approaches for people leading to poor outcomes. Support plans lacked personalisation and did not always reflect people’s preferred communication styles, sensory needs, or cultural backgrounds. Staff did not consistently adapt their approach to meet individual needs, and opportunities to promote autonomy, emotional wellbeing, and self-expression were missed. The provider did match staff cultural backgrounds with people living in the service where rota systems allowed.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service did not consistently promote independence, choice, and control for people. While some staff supported people to make everyday decisions, this was not embedded across the team or reflected in care planning. People were not always given meaningful opportunities to shape their routines, express preferences, or take part in activities. For example, people were routinely grouped together for activities without consideration of their individual preferences, hobbies, or communication needs. Staff lacked confidence in using communication tools such as PECs (picture exchange communication system) and the use of Makaton and approaches tailored to individual needs, which limited people’s ability to make informed choices. The approach to care did not fully recognise people as individuals with their own identities and aspirations. This falls short of the expectations set out in Right Care, Right Support, Right Culture.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Care plans were not always updated to reflect people’s current needs or presentation, and adjustments to support were sometimes reactive rather than proactive. Responses to distressed behaviours were inconsistent, and staff did not always have the training or confidence to de-escalate situations safely and sensitively. In some cases, the use of isolation as a response to distressed behaviour further impacted people’s ability to access support when they needed it and was not always proportionate or clearly documented. These shortfalls impacted people’s experience of care and their sense of safety and dignity. These practices did not align with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, which aim to ensure that people with learning disabilities and autistic people receive personalised, respectful, and inclusive care.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt valued and were supported within their role. Some staff confirmed there were regular opportunities to progress and develop new skills. However, the service did not consistently support the wellbeing or enablement of its workforce. Staff raised concerns about being harmed while supporting people in distress, and there was limited evidence that these incidents were followed up with appropriate action, support, or learning. This contributed to feelings of vulnerability and lack of confidence. Training opportunities were limited, particularly in areas such as positive behaviour support, de-escalation, and safeguarding, leaving staff ill-equipped to manage complex situations safely.