Archived: Lifeways Community Care

Updated 27 August 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Our inspection took place on 10 and 11 June 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. Due to how small the service is the manager is often out of the office supporting staff and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information is then used to help us plan our inspection.  To plan our inspection we also reviewed information we held about the service. This included notifications received from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents, safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law.

We requested information about the service from the Local Authority (LA). They have responsibility for funding people who used the service and monitoring its quality. We were provided with information we used as part of the planning process for our inspection.

We visited the provider’s main office location. We spoke with a total of five people who used the service either in person or via the telephone. We spoke to a further three members of staff on the day of the inspection and the registered manager. After the inspection visit we undertook telephone calls to four relatives of four people who received services from the provider and another member of staff. We reviewed the care records of three people that used the service, reviewed the records for four members of staff and records related to the management of the service.

Updated 27 August 2015

The inspection took place on the 10 and 11 June 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care and we wanted to be sure that staff would be available.

Lifeways Community Care is registered to provide personal care services to people in their own homes or in a supported living environment. People who use the services have a physical disability, an eating disorder, learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. On the day of the inspection, 46 people were receiving support from the service either in their own home or in a supported living environment. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act (2008) and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt the service they received from care staff was delivered in a safe manner. Care staff told us they knew how to keep people safe from harm.

While people and relatives told us that medicines were being administered to their satisfaction, we found no evidence to show that care staff competency to administer medicines was being checked.

Whilst care staff told us they were able to access training, the evidence we saw indicated that care staff were not all completing training consistently to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge to support people.

People told us that their consent was being sought before support was given.

Where people lacked capacity we found that the provider ensured the Mental Capacity Act (2005) legislation was being adhered to. This ensured where people lacked capacity their human rights were not being restricted.

Where people needed support to eat and drink, this was being done. However, the guidelines available to care staff were not sufficiently clear to ensure care staff would consistently know the appropriate process to follow.

People told us that care staff were caring, kind and compassionate with how they supported them.

People’s privacy and dignity was being respected.

People and relatives told us they were involved in how their support needs were assessed, and they made all the decisions as to how their support needs were met by care staff be that they were living in their own home or in a supported living environment.

People who lived in supported living accommodation told us their preferences were being appropriately met by care staff.

People knew how to share any concerns they had by way of using the provider’s complaints procedure. People also told us they received a questionnaire where they were able to share their views on the quality of the support they received.

Records were not being completed consistently or accurately enough to ensure people’s support needs would be met consistently.

People and relatives told us they were able to give their views on the service by way of completing an annual questionnaire provided by the provider.

We found that the provider had a system in place to check on the quality of service people received. However, the system was not effective in ensuring the quality of the service people received.