Lifeways Community Care (Taunton)

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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. They did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were not consistently supported in a person-centred way. Staff told us, in 1 of the services staff changed shifts to suit their needs rather than people’s. We were also told 1 person had to go to their room at 9pm and was not allowed to come downstairs. We discussed this with the registered manager who investigated, we were told this was historic behaviour and received assurances this was not happening in the service.

We received positive feedback from some people’s relatives. One relative told us their relative was, “The most settled they had ever been.” Another relative told us how their loved one wanted a “Proper Cornish pasty, so they [staff] drove into Cornwall to get one.”

Staff told us person-centred care was, “All about what [the person] wants to do, ask (person) what they want to do”, “Putting them first, their needs before yours, getting what they need” and “Person at the centre of everything we do”.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We received mixed feedback from professionals relating to how cohesively the service worked with them to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager gave us examples of where they were working with commissioners where services were not meeting people’s current needs.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service supported people to express their views and offered choices tailored to individual people using a communication method appropriate to that person. People’s care plans contained information about people’s individual communication needs. Throughout the assessment we observed staff communicating with people in their preferred method of communication.

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 and families in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service had a complaints policy. We received mixed feedback regarding how complaints were managed. During the assessment 1 relative told us they had raised a complaint and had not received a satisfactory response. However, another relative told us a complaint they previously raised was resolved satisfactorily. Records demonstrated where complaints had been received, they were responded to in line with the providers complaints procedure.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives regarding quality assurance questionnaires. One relative told us, “I haven’t been asked to fill in a questionnaire about Lifeways or his support”, although another relative told us “I have had a questionnaire from Lifeways, every year. I’ve never received any feedback following it.”

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Reasonable adjustments were in place for people who needed them. This meant people’s disability did not prevent them from accessing the support they needed. For 1 person, the service had worked alongside other professionals to ensure the person’s property met their needs. Specific adaptations were made which included sensor taps in bathrooms to prevent flooding and sensor lights that required no switches.

Staff supported people to ensure they did not experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff told us how they had worked with health professionals to support a person to attend health appointments, where this had caused the person anxiety. They also gave examples of working with the community to break down barriers in accessing community services.

Staff received training in equality and diversity which gave them an awareness of barriers and discrimination which people living at the home may experience.

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. At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at end of life. Some people had last wish disclaimers in place, although others did not. Support was not always focused on people’s quality of life outcomes. People’s outcomes were not always regularly monitored and reviewed.