Lifeways Community Care Leicester (West)

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service did not consistently deliver person-centred care for people. Support plans lacked detail and were not routinely co-produced with individuals or those who know them best. As a result, care was often generic and did not reflect people’s unique preferences, communication styles, or life goals. Relatives confirmed they were not involved in the development of care delivery. One relative told us “In the past I was invited to regular yearly reviews as next of kin, however, this doesn’t appear to have happened in the last three years”. This limited people’s ability to lead fulfilling lives and undermined the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. The provider must ensure that care is personalised, inclusive, and shaped by the voices of the people it supports.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Care provision was inconsistent and lacked effective integration and continuity. Observations highlighted that staff applied varying approaches to supporting people, particularly with incidents of distressed behaviours. This inconsistency led to confusion for people using the service and reduced their confidence in the support they received or increased their distress and anxiety. Continuity in staff approaches was limited, affecting relationship-building and trust which meant people were actively seeking out other staff members not working directly with them for assurances. These issues undermined the delivery of joined-up, responsive care and did not fully reflect the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Observations highlighted inconsistent approaches among staff when sharing information about daily routines, changes in care, or available choices. Some people received updates and explanations, while others were left uncertain or uninformed, leading to confusion and anxiety. Accessible formats such as easy-read documents, visual aids, social stories or communication tools were not routinely used, and staff lacked confidence in adapting information to meet individual communication needs. The provider had a full compliment of easy read policies available for people and their relatives including accessible newsletters about the service and provider.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider worked well with landlord of the building to involve people in sharing their experiences of living in the purpose-built accommodation. Meetings were held with the landlord engagement officer to capture tenant views and support the provider in developing the building and the grounds to enhance individual tenant experiences. However, the provider did not consistently listen to or involve people in decisions about their care and daily lives. Observations revealed inconsistent approaches among staff. People were not always encouraged to express their views, and communication tools were not reliably used to support understanding or participation. Care plans lacked evidence of co-production, and reviews were often completed without active involvement from the person or their representatives. This led to missed opportunities to tailor support around individual preferences, aspirations, and feedback.

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

The provider did not consistently ensure equitable access to care, support, and opportunities for people living in supported accommodation. There were gaps in how the service responded to individual cultural, health, or social needs, which limited inclusion and fairness. Some individuals faced barriers to accessing community resources or meaningful activities due to inconsistent planning and mobility issues where the environment impacted people to access communal areas. The registered manager told us this had been highlighted as a concern, and referrals had been made to ensure relevant assessment.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

While some people received person-centred care, others experienced variability in the quality and consistency of support. Staff understanding of neurodiversity, learning disability and autistic people, including their communication needs was inconsistent, leading to missed opportunities to engage people meaningfully in decisions about their care. There were limited systems in place to monitor and address disparities in outcomes, such as access to, health and social care support services and personalised goals. This meant that not all people received care that was tailored to their strengths, preferences, and aspirations.

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.

One person was supported to purchase a pram for when they went for a walk in the community. This enabled the person to become less distressed and reduce the risk of dropping to the floor. Some people had goals documented in their care plans, however, they lacked detail about how staff would support people to achieve them. There was limited evidence of proactive planning or positive risk taking around education, employment, relationships, or independent living skills. This meant opportunities for growth and development were missed, and people were not always supported to live as independently as possible.

Importantly, care planning lacked detail in end of life wishes and views, meaning people were not given the opportunity to express their wishes, values, and preferences for later life in a safe and supported way.