Lifeways Community Care (East Midlands)

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. The management team and provider ensured thorough investigations of accidents and incidents took place to determine the actions that may be required to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Learning from events had been cascaded through the staff team and staff confirmed communication was good and they promptly were informed of any changes in people’s care. The management team and provider had systems in place to ensure accidents and incidents were regularly analysed for to identify any emerging themes or patterns to improve the care provided.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People’s needs were thoroughly assessed prior to them using the service to ensure their needs could be safely met. Key information was sought from the person, their relatives and external professionals involved in their care. Assessments had also been adapted into accessible formats to provide people with the opportunity to share their views in a way that suited their preferred communication methods. The management team told us of how they assessed people’s compatibility prior to them moving in and how the views of people who already used the service was gathered and considered to ensure people felt comfortable and were involved in decisions made. Key information had been adapted to accessible formats to ensure people were provided and understood the information they required about the service and moving in.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff confirmed they had regular safeguarding training and demonstrated their knowledge of how to recognise signs of abuse and how to safeguard people if they had any concerns. The service had a safeguarding champion in place who ensured safeguarding information and updates were communicated throughout the staff teams and was also a person people, staff and relatives could approach for additional support and information. People told us they felt happy and safe using the service, we observed people to be familiar and comfortable with the staff supporting them.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We found people were safely supported to live their day to day lives in line with their choices and preferences. People’s care plans detailed their short term and long-term aspirations and goals which were regularly reviewed. We saw evidence of how staff had worked with people to develop and maximise people’s independence at a pace they were comfortable with. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and how to positively support them with known risks. Where staff had sought advice from external professionals, their advice was included in people’s care plans and was followed by staff. Staff also demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people positively when they experienced feelings of distress and how they put the training they had received into their practice.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.CQC do not regulate the premises which are the responsibility of the landlord. However, systems were in place to ensure the premises were safe and any tenancy matters were reported and progressed. The provider had systems in place to ensure people’s environments were regularly checked for hazards and staff regularly liaised with people’s housing providers to ensure maintenance and safety checks were completed. Stakeholders told us how staff acted promptly when they identified any health and safety concerns.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People were supported by small teams of staff who knew them well. We observed people to be comfortable and familiar with staff. Relatives told us how the consistency of staffing benefitted their relatives. One relative told us, “A lot of staff have been there over 10 years, barely any turnover. It’s like a family, they all know each other so well.” Staff spoke positively about the training they had received to carry out their roles, and managers evidenced they carried out regular checks of staff’s competency to ensure staff carried out their duties in accordance with the training they had completed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The provider had an infection, control and prevention policy in place and systems and processes to ensure infection, prevention and control measures were regularly audited. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available throughout the services and staff confirmed there was always an adequate supply of this.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medicines were administered by trained staff who received regular checks and direct observation of their practice. Stock levels corresponded with the records in place and audits of medicine administration records were conducted regularly by the management team and provider. Staff ensured people's feelings were not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines. Staff ensured that people's medicines were reviewed by prescribers and provided us with evidence of where a person’s medicines had been reduced following effective strategies being developed by staff to reduce the person’s feelings of distress. Relatives talked positively about their experience of how staff managed medicines and told us they had no concerns about this. The provider had adapted their medicine policy into an accessible format to support people’s understanding of medicine administration.