Lifeways Community Care (Exeter)

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans were detailed, and their likes, preferences and goals were outlined for staff to follow and deliver consistent care. For example, people had activities tailored to their preferences, in 1 case a person does not like crowded or noisy places. The support team made sure they choose a venue in the community which was less busy at different times of the day. This meant a person could participate in a social activity they enjoyed without becoming distressed. Care was delivered in a way which suited people’s preference. This meant the team worked in a flexible way. For example, if a person did not want to have their support at a particular time of the day the staff team would then come back to them at a time that suited them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were supported by a range of health care professionals. Staff supported people in a way which optimised continuity. Each time a person had a meeting or consultation this was recorded and handed over to relevant parties. For example, if a person had a speech and language team involved in their care the GP would be updated. This meant the person’s health and well being outcomes were met consistently.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed by the provider. Communication systems were tailored for each person. Information was provided in a way which was meaningful to people according to their needs. For example, there was a staff photo board in the office in 1 location. This meant people knew who was on duty each shift. In other areas information was in easy read formats. Pictures were also used were appropriate. A white board was in use in another location which helped with information sharing. Overall, the provider had several methods of sharing information depending on the needs of individuals.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Everyone we spoke with told us they knew how to complain and felt it would be addressed. Once person said, “I am happy with everything and if I wasn’t I know who to contact and I can always come to the Care Quality Commission.” A relative said, “The staff at the home are always so kind, caring, and supportive, and we truly appreciate their willingness to bring [person] to family outings, even at short notice”.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. When people’s health needs changed the provider ensured a referral to a health care professional was made. People had access to a range of health care professionals when required. People could be confident that their health needs were a priority.

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. Staff attended health appointments with people when needed. This ensured that people received the right level of support when required. Outcomes for people were recorded and follow up appointments were made when required. Staff had training in equality and diversity which gave them awareness of barriers and discrimination people they support may experience.

People were 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. Staff knew people well and had spent time with them finding out their wishes and preferences. At the time of the inspection no one was receiving end of life care.