Lifeways Community Care Limited (Bolton)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Company values had not been well-communicated to staff. The company had adopted a set of CHOICE values to be embraced by staff and in conversations with staff no one knew all the values.

During this inspection we spoke with 11 support staff, 3 service managers, a senior service manager and a manager awaiting registration. Staff did feel supported by service managers but told us about the pressures they faced. Not all service managers had team leader support. Whilst there were mechanisms in place for staff to raise concerns and suggest improvements within the wider company, staff we spoke to did not always feel comfortable in doing so. Staff told us any conversations or suggestions for change would be broached with service managers to take forward.

Although the provider had auditing processes and systems in place to oversee the governance of the service, these systems did not always identify the areas requiring improvement. Not all staff recruited by the human resources team possessed the required skills. People were limited to when their cars could be used due a lack of drivers.

Plans were in place to further improve and develop the service. This included the recent introduction of electronic care plans in some sites. Progress with this was slow as service managers were mainly responsible for the transfer of care planning information.

Relatives told us staff worked in partnership with them and people's care professionals, as required.

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.

Staff did not feel that the current direction from senior management was a positive one. Service managers we spoke with expressed concerns with their workloads, especially those without team leader support; lots of changes had been introduced quite quickly and staff described this as ‘over-whelming’.

The company had adopted a set of CHOICE values to be embraced by staff. The CHOICE values were caring, honesty, one team, innovative, courageous and equal. In conversations with staff no one knew all the values and 4 staff were able to name some elements. Company values had not been well-communicated to staff.

Staff did feel supported by service managers but told us about the pressures they faced. One staff member told us, “[Service manager] has been given more services; they try their best to visit us.” They told us the service manager was contactable and very responsive. Some considered the new manager to be supportive but not all staff had met them. Staff told us they had felt isolated in services due to the lack of a registered manager for some time.

The provider was recruiting new leaders and training existing senior staff in line with company values. There was a new manager in post at the time of this inspection. We spoke with 3 service managers who were relatively new to the role. Whilst we received compliments about the training and support for new service managers, the limited team leader support on site was a concern.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns and felt comfortable in doing so at a local level. Not all staff were confident of how they might raise concerns with higher management. Service managers were respected by their staff.

There were mechanisms in place for staff to speak up, however not all staff said they would be comfortable to raise concerns with higher management. Policies and guidance were available to staff to enable them to raise concerns externally if required.

Staff we spoke with voiced no concerns. We were given examples of when the provider had been flexible with staff. Working hours had been reduced on request due to a staff member’s changes in circumstances. Staff were aware of workplace benefits available to them and where to find these.

The provider had recruitment and diversity policies in place. Diverse staff teams were employed to help meet the needs of people. A staff survey had been carried out in February 2024.

The provider was introducing a new electronic support planning system. This was being phased in slowly across the service. Service managers were mainly responsible for inputting paper-based support plans on to computerised systems. This added pressure onto existing workloads, particularly as service managers had limited team leader support.

Provider systems had not ensured effective governance was in place and breaches in compliance had been identified at this inspection. Recruitment processes were robust, and newly recruited staff had caring experience. However, staff did not always have useful wider skills to support people out in the community; for example, many teams had few drivers. Staff understanding of consent needed to be refreshed and support plans needed to accurately reflect where next of kins could legally make health and welfare decisions on behalf of people. Staff culture had been negatively affected due to the lack of management oversight for a prolonged period. The provider had recently introduced new governance arrangements to improve oversight of this service, but these needed to be fully embedded into the service. The manager understood their responsibilities in relation to their regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. There was an overarching quality assurance process which included checks carried out by the registered manager, service managers and the quality assurance team.

Relatives told us staff worked in partnership with them and people's care professionals, as required. Comments included, "Staff let me know what has gone on after taking [relative] to see their GP" and "Staff work well in partnership with other agencies."

Managers understood their duty to collaborate with external partners and stakeholders. Feedback from staff was mixed in this regard. They considered the provider could do more to ensure people were afforded opportunities to engage more in their local communities. The provider shared information and engaged with partners to help drive the improvements required.

Following recent concerns raised by commissioners the provider was engaging with 2 local authorities. A service improvement plan was in place and identified quality issues were being addressed. Commissioners we contacted were more assured but noted the provider still had work to do to evidence full compliance.

Whilst the provider had been engaging with the local authority to progress the service improvement plan, we saw no evidence of participation in groups organised by the Local Authority, which aimed to help improve care services in the local area. The provider should also seek to better engage in local forums to work with other organisations to improve care and support for people using the service. Referrals were made to other agencies when necessary.

One service manager told us of the improvements they had made to the staff culture. Staff now worked their hours over shorter shift periods, meaning staff availability had increased. Support times in one scheme were flexed according to people’s needs. This approach however, had not been more widely adopted across the company.

The provider had recently made changes to internal processes to assist with learning and help drive improvement. These needed to be fully embedded within the service to help achieve full compliance with regulations.