Lifeways Community Care (Taunton)

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

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.

The provider did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Our observations of interactions between people and staff were not always positive. Staff raised concerns with us about the culture of some of the services during our assessment. We discussed this with the registered manager who was aware of some of the concerns and addressing them. The registered manager gave assurances regarding the actions they were taking to improve the culture.

The provider had not always ensured the management team were trained and supported in their roles. For example, service managers and team leaders had not all received in depth inductions and ongoing training to enable them to have the skills and knowledge to undertake their roles. The registered manager explained the plans in place to address this.

The registered manager had recently started managing the service, having previously managed another of the provider’s services. The registered manager was skilled and experienced. However, we discussed with the provider the registered manager’s capacity to manage the service due to its size, locations of services and the concerns identified. The provider gave us assurances they were reviewing this and had plans in place to ensure the registered manager was supported.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives regarding the management of the service. Comments included, “I am happy with [name of relative's] care. The leadership hasn’t been too good, but it is early days with the new manager”, “I do feel that the communication from the management is a bit lacking. 18 months ago, it was good, then the next management not so good. I am hopeful that it is improving” and “I have sent emails in the past to management, but so far, they seem to get completely ignored, even if I go higher up.”

Some staff told us they did not receive good support from the previous management. Staff within 1 service told us management “Never visited”, they had “No support”, and “They would send messages but didn’t hear anything back.” One staff member told us, “All I can say is Lifeways neglected us here, prior to [Name of service manager] we had several managers who wouldn’t have known what we looked like. They saw us 1-2 times a year.” The staff member told us they were now getting the support they “Deserve and need.”

Most staff felt supported and were positive about the current management team. Comments included, “[Registered manager] has been supportive, I can ring them up any time”, “[Registered manager) has been great, probably the most supportive I have felt”, “[Service manager] is amazing, they are a good manager” and “[Service manager] has always been absolutely fantastic and is always at the end of a phone.”

The provider did not always foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they reported concerns, however these were not always escalated, responded to and investigated in line with the provider’s procedures. This meant processes in place to ensure risks associated with closed cultures were identified and mitigated were not fully effective. We discussed this with the registered manager who took action in response to any concerns we raised.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Most staff felt they were treated fairly and equally, felt valued and respected and thought it was a good place to work. Within 1 service some staff raised concerns regarding bullying. The registered manager was aware of the concerns with an investigation ongoing. The organisation had a diversity council in place and staff recently represented the organisation at London Pride.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Systems and processes to assess, monitor and mitigate risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people were not fully effective. The systems had not identified all the areas for improvement detailed in other sections of this report, which we found during this assessment. Where action points had been marked as complete on the providers improvement plans and audits, we identified issues were still present.

We found improvements were needed to ensure individual risks for people were identified and action taken to mitigate risks, concerns with people being treated with dignity and respect and supporting people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The management team were transparent and receptive to our findings throughout the assessment and undertook action to make improvements.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement, this had improved since the registered manager had been in post.

One professional told us, “They weren't a well led team, there were pockets of staff trying, it felt positive after the last visit, [name of registered manager] is transparent.” The registered manager recognised there was significant work to do, and they were working in collaboration with professionals to achieve this.

The provider did not always ensure continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Not all of the concerns identified in our inspection in August 2023 had been addressed. The provider gave assurances they had learnt from this and were taking action to improve the service. They told us there was also organisational learning to ensure governance systems were effective across the organisation.