Lifeways Community Care Limited (Leicestershire County)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last rated inspection, we rated this key question Inadequate. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care

This service scored 40 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People did not always experience consistently kind or compassionate care, and improvements were needed to ensure staff upheld people’s dignity and treated them with respect at all times. While we observed some positive interactions, these were not consistent across the staff team.

Some staff did not always take the time to engage with people in a warm or person‑centred way, and interactions could be task‑focused rather than supportive or reassuring. Staff did not always recognise when people required emotional support or reassurance, and opportunities to build trusting, respectful relationships were sometimes missed. These shortfalls meant people’s experience of care varied depending on which staff were supporting them, and the service did not consistently foster a culture of kindness and compassion.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff did not always demonstrate a consistent understanding of people’s personal preferences, routines, and communication needs. Care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff in delivering truly person‑centred support, and information was not always updated when people’s needs or choices changed. This meant care could feel task‑focused rather than tailored, and people did not always experience support which reflected what mattered most to them. Although some staff knew people well and provided compassionate interactions, these positive examples were not consistent across the service.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People who relied on staff to anticipate their needs or had complex communication needs were not supported to have maximum independence, choice or control over their lives. The culture of the service did not promote people’s rights or autonomy.

Staff did not consistently involve people in decisions about their daily routines, care or support, and we saw examples where choices were made on behalf of people without consultation or consideration of their preferences.

The culture observed did not reflect a person‑centred approach for people. Care delivery was at times staff‑led rather than shaped around people’s individual needs, preferences or aspirations. This meant some people had limited opportunities to make informed choices about their care and support or to experience meaningful involvement in decisions affecting their daily lives.

People were not encouraged or enabled to develop independent living skills, and opportunities to support people to do as much as possible for themselves were frequently missed.

Restrictions were applied without clear rationale, and staff did not always recognise when their actions limited people’s freedom or ability to make everyday decisions. Care plans did not always reflect people’s goals, strengths or aspirations, and there was little evidence staff worked in a way that empowered people to have control over their own lives. These failings did not support the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as not all people were enabled to lead fulfilling lives, exercise choice, or experience a culture that promoted dignity, respect and independence.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Changes in people’s needs were not responded to promptly, and staff did not have the up‑to‑date information required to manage emerging risks. For example, a person experiencing a deterioration in their mental health had not had their behaviour support plans updated to reflect new known risks, leaving staff without essential guidance on how to respond to immediate needs safely. This placed the person and others at significant risk of harm.

We also found delays in responding to requests for assistance, inconsistent monitoring of people showing signs of distress or when they required immediate medical intervention. These failings meant people were left without the immediate support they required, and the provider lacked effective oversight to identify or address these concerns. The provider didn’t have effective communication systems, ensure staff had up‑to‑date information to improve oversight so people’s immediate and changing needs were met reliably.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Several staff told us they felt under pressure due to recent changes to systems and processes, which they felt had not been introduced with sufficient training or ongoing support. Although the provider implemented an electronic care‑planning system over a year ago, several staff told us they were still undertrained and unsure how to use the system or access care records when they needed them.

Some service managers responsible for supporting staff teams with the system also struggled to ensure teams could use it confidently or facilitate effective monitoring. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to complete tasks accurately or in a timely way, which impacted their ability to deliver consistent, person‑centred support.

While some staff described positive relationships with their managers, this was not experienced consistently across the service. The provider’s approach to staff wellbeing, didn’t ensure staff received appropriate training and support, nor reliable systems that enabled them to feel competent, valued, and able to meet people’s needs effectively.