Lifeways Community Care Limited (Leicestershire County)

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last rated inspection, we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained required improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 39 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not receive person‑centred care, and the service failed to ensure support was tailored to individuals’ needs, preferences or aspirations. Care plans lacked meaningful detail about what mattered to them, and staff did not consistently involve individuals in shaping their daily routines or support.

We observed staff‑ and resource‑led practices often dictated how care was delivered, rather than adapting support around each person’s choices or goals. For example, people had limited opportunities for going out and doing the things they enjoyed. Group outings were arranged to meet the requirements of staff deployment rather than being based on people’s individual interests, preferences or wishes.

This contributed to a culture where people were expected to fit into the service’s routines, rather than the service adapting to them. As a result, people had limited opportunities to express their preferences, make informed decisions or experience care that reflected their identity, values or aspirations. These failings meant people were not treated as individuals, and the service did not uphold the principles of person‑centred care, right support, right care, right culture or promote positive, meaningful outcomes.

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

People did not always receive safe, coordinated or consistent support. Staff did not share information effectively, and important updates about people’s changing needs were frequently missed or not acted upon. This resulted in significant gaps in continuity, with different staff delivering care in conflicting ways and people receiving support that did not reflect their current needs, risks or preferences.

We received feedback from health professionals working directly with people, who raised concerns about poor communication and a lack of timely action to implement risk mitigation and effective monitoring of health conditions. This included following SALT (Speech and Language Team) guidance staff were required to implement to reduce the risk of choking. This meant care was not joined‑up and people were left at risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate support.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had some written information in easy read formats, such as medicines policies and tenancy agreements. However, some people with profound communication needs did not have detailed communication plans in place. This meant staff lacked effective guidance on how to support individuals to express their wishes or make informed choices in line with their abilities.

Staff also lacked skills in meaningful engagement to ensure people understood staff actions before support was provided, which further limited people’s involvement in decisions about their care. We observed staff struggling to interpret people’s communication cues and relying on assumptions rather than structured, person‑specific information. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that did not reflect their preferences, reduced their autonomy, and limited their ability to participate meaningfully in decisions about their lives.

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

The service did not consistently listen to or involve people and their relatives in shaping their care, which affected how responsive it was to their needs. Although the provider had a complaints policy in place, people’s experiences of how concerns were handled were mixed. Some relatives told us responses to complaints had improved since the last inspection; however, others said service managers were very busy and did not always respond to concerns in a timely way. One relative said, “I think the service manager is trying to manage too many things, they have a new senior starting, so hopefully this will improve.”

Regular staff meetings were held across the locations, giving staff opportunities to share ideas and concerns, but staff told us feedback was not always acted upon, and they were not confident issues would lead to meaningful change. This lack of follow‑through meant care plans were not always updated promptly when people’s needs or preferences changed. People and families were not always given meaningful opportunities to share their views, and activities and routines were sometimes generic rather than personalised. As a result, the service was not always reliably flexible or person‑centred, and improvements were needed to ensure all people using the service were listened to, involved, and supported in ways that reflected what mattered most to them.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Although the provider aimed to deliver a service that was accessible to all, people did not always experience equitable access to opportunities or support. We found variations between locations in how consistently people were supported to go out into the community, develop life skills, progress towards personal goals and achieve good health outcomes. This meant some people had regular opportunities to engage in meaningful activities and build independence, while others experienced limited stimulation or progression.

People with more complex communication needs or higher levels of dependency were particularly at risk of having their aspirations overlooked, as they were not always supported to express their preferences or influence decisions about their daily lives. As a result, the systems in place did not reliably ensure that everyone had fair and timely access to the same quality of opportunities, experiences and outcomes.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

People did not experience equitable care dependant on where they lived or how independent they were, the service failed to ensure everyone received the same quality of support or had equal opportunities to achieve positive outcomes. We found significant inconsistencies in how people were supported, with some individuals receiving more attention, engagement and opportunities than others.

Staff did not recognise or respond to the diverse needs, communication styles or personal circumstances of different people, which meant some individuals were disadvantaged in how their care was planned and delivered. The management of health outcomes was also inequitable, as monitoring was inconsistent and some people did not receive timely support to maintain or improve their health.

There was no evidence the provider monitored outcomes across different groups to identify inequality or take action to address it. Staff and resource‑led practices further contributed to unequal experiences, as decisions about activities, routines and support were often based on operational convenience rather than people’s individual needs or rights. As a result, some people had fewer opportunities to participate in meaningful activities, express their preferences or make progress towards their goals.

These failings meant the service did not uphold the principles of fairness, inclusion or person‑centred care, and people were exposed to avoidable inequality in both their experience and outcomes.

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.

Planned outcomes had been identified for some people who were more able to communicate their goals; however, these goals were not consistently reviewed with people to measure progress, success or outcome, limiting the service’s ability to adapt support in a timely and meaningful way. People who were less able to express their wishes did not have clearly defined or personalised progression plans, which meant their needs and aspirations were not always anticipated or proactively supported. This inconsistency meant the service was not reliably responsive to people’s changing needs or preferences. As a result, people did not always experience care that was flexible, forward‑looking or tailored to their individual circumstances.