CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lifeways Community Care (South Shields)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines systems and infection control were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were supported to be as independent as possible and involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's choices and communication needs. People were supported with activities, community access and contact with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, improved staff morale and quality monitoring systems. Staff, relatives and professionals said they felt listened to.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Lifeways Community Care (South Shields) was rated Good after major improvements, with safe, kind and person-centred care found during a focused inspection.
One inspector visited on 30 April and 14 June 2021. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance because of COVID-19 risks. The inspector reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment and quality checks, and spoke with staff, relatives and visiting professionals.
Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were suitable. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in choices about daily life, supported to take part in activities and helped to keep in touch with relatives.
The home had previously been rated Inadequate, with several legal breaches. This inspection found enough improvement for the breaches to be removed and the overall rating to become Good. CQC said the management and staff had worked hard to change the culture and improve care.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff supported their dignity and independence.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff.” from the report
People have choice
People helped decide what to eat, which activities to do and when to get up or go to bed.
“People were involved in all aspects of their care and future planning.” from the report
Safer systems
Risk assessments were in place and reviewed. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
“Risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure up-to-date information was always available for staff to access.” from the report
Improved culture
The report describes substantial changes in the home's culture and management. Staff said morale and support had improved.
“There was now a positive culture within the home.” from the report
Not a full reassessment
minorThis was a focused inspection. The report does not give a new rating for Effective, and some ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
“This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions of Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led which contain those requirements.” from the report
- 01How have you maintained the improvements made after the previous Inadequate rating?
- 02How often are my relative's risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes in their needs acted on?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred activities, community access and contact with family?
- 04How do you check that staff can safely support changes in a person's health or care needs?
- 05What quality checks and staff meetings are now used to identify and fix problems?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; Effective was not reassessed and some ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with respectful, person-centred care, safeguarding and management.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about management and a possible closed culture. Inspectors visited on 28 August and 15 September 2020, reviewed records and spoke with staff, relatives and a visiting professional.
People were not always treated with kindness or given choice and control over their care and activities. Some staff described the home as regimented and institutional. Safeguarding concerns raised by staff had not always been acted on, and some care records, risk assessments and safety checks were not properly followed up.
There were some positive findings. Medicines were managed safely, infection control was robust, staffing levels were appropriate on the inspection day, and staff communicated effectively with people. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate.
The home was placed in special measures. The CQC said it would keep the service under review and normally re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvement.
Medicines
People's medicines were managed safely. Staff had suitable training and competency checks, and records were audited.
“People's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found robust infection control arrangements, including effective use of protective equipment and measures to prevent outbreaks.
“Robust infection control procedures were in place.” from the report
Communication
People's communication needs were recorded, and staff were seen communicating with each person in a way that worked for them.
“During the inspection staff were observed to communicate effectively with each person in their own identified way.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported people to keep in touch with relatives during the coronavirus pandemic and provided regular updates.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives during the coronavirus pandemic.” from the report
Partnership working
The home continued to work with other agencies. A visiting professional said staff knew people well and followed advice.
“The service worked well with partnership agencies and had continued to do so throughout the coronavirus pandemic.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns not acted on
seriousStaff had raised safeguarding and poor practice concerns, but these had not always led to action. Some staff lacked confidence that raising concerns would make a difference.
“People were not always protected from abuse.” from the report
Care was not always respectful
seriousSome staff said people were regularly ignored or spoken to abruptly. This could cause distress and escalate people's behaviour.
“Some staff told us people had been regularly ignored and spoken to in an abrupt tone.” from the report
Too little choice
needs fixingPeople did not always receive care that matched their individual needs, and they were not always supported to choose activities.
“People had not always been supported to access and attend appropriate activities or activities of their choice.” from the report
Risk and safety checks
seriousSome risk assessments and hospital passports were not up to date. Actions from fire and legionella checks had not been completed or followed up.
“Premises safety checks were completed on a regular basis. However not all issues identified following these checks had been actioned.” from the report
Weak management culture
seriousMost staff said they felt stressed, demotivated and unsupported. Management had not properly identified or investigated important concerns.
“There was a lack of positive culture within the home and this had been raised as an issue.” from the report
Complaints not handled promptly
needs fixingOne complaint was acknowledged a month after it was received, despite the provider's policy requiring acknowledgement within three days. There was also no further update to the complainant.
“Complaints had not always been handled in line with the provider's own policy.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure safeguarding concerns raised by staff are investigated and acted on?
- 02How do you now make sure people can choose their activities and that staff follow their individual care plans?
- 03Have all outstanding fire risk assessment and legionella actions been completed, and can you show us the evidence?
- 04How are staff supported to raise concerns safely and how do managers check that the home's culture is respectful?
- 05What is the current special measures position and when was the service last re-inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; Effective was not inspected and its previous rating carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Lifeways Community Care (South Shields)
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Lifeways Community Care (South Shields) →
- December 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Lifeways Community Care (South Shields) →
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Tyneside
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,140 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.