Lifeways Community Care Limited (Leicestershire County)

Updated 30 January 2026

Date of inspection 3, 4 10 March 2026. The inspection of this location was prompted by the provider being in special measures following their last inspection in April 2025. We undertook a comprehensive inspection.

Lifeways Community Care Limited (Leicestershire County) is a supported living service which provides personal care for people living in their own tenancies in either individual dwellings or shared accommodation. The service provides support to autistic people and to people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Risk management arrangements were not safe, not robust and did not protect people from harm. Systems to assess, plan for and mitigate individual clinical health needs were ineffective, inconsistent and in some cases absent. As a result, people with acute or deteriorating health conditions did not always have their needs recognised or managed safely, placing them at significant risk of avoidable harm.

Staff were not equipped with the training, competence or clinical knowledge required to support people with complex health conditions or to respond appropriately to medical emergencies. This meant people were exposed to unsafe care and delays in receiving urgent intervention.

Safeguarding processes were not reliably followed, and incidents were not always reported in line with the provider’s own policy. This failure to escalate concerns meant opportunities to protect people and prevent reoccurrence were missed.

Leaders did not demonstrate effective oversight, understanding or governance of people’s needs or the risks within the service. Incident management was poor, lacked analysis, and did not drive learning or improvement. This contributed to a culture where unsafe practice was able to continue without challenge.

This service remains in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a time-frame within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

Updated 30 January 2026

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding the care and support received. Most people and relatives raised concerns with the lack of provider oversight, staffing and poor quality of life for their family members. Comments included, “The main concern is lack of staff. The service manager is covering a lot of shifts. There is no house leader either which puts pressure on the staff team.” And “There is not as much opportunity for my relative to get out and about, not as I would like there to be. They spend too much time in their room watching You Tube. I would rather they spent the 1-1 time playing games, planning outings or helping develop skills”.

We also received some positive comments and these included, “It is a lot better than it was. We have new staff members, a new manager. [relative] hasn’t had any bruising, no marks. It seems a lot calmer” and “Staff are a lot more helpful than the previous ones. It’s what’s best for [relative] and the others that live there, they have a new manager who is trying to make things better”

We observed staff interactions with people to understand people’s experience of the care they received. As some individuals were unable to verbally communicate their views, we relied on observation to assess whether care was delivered in a way that upheld their rights, preferences and wellbeing. While some staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and communicated with them in their preferred way, this was not consistent across all locations.

At some locations, staff lacked the skills and confidence to engage with people in a meaningful and purposeful manner. Limited staff knowledge of people’s complex communication needs meant they were not always able to recognise or respond to people’s cues, emotions or attempts to express themselves. This directly affected people’s experience of care, reducing their ability to participate in decisions, communicate their wishes and feel understood.