Liberty House

Updated 17 January 2020

The inspection

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

Inspection team

The team consisted of one inspector and an assistant inspector.

Service and service type

Liberty House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a registered manager registered with CQC. This means that the provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. They were at the home at the time of our inspection and we were assisted by them throughout the inspection.

Notice of inspection

The inspection was unannounced. The inspection site visit activity started on 18 November 2019 and ended the same day. We visited the service and see and speak with the people living there, the registered and deputy managers and staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information and notifications of incidents we received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spent time observing the care and support being provided throughout the home. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with two people who lived in the home. We also spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and three support staff.

We looked at the care records for three of the people who lived in the service. We also looked at records that related to how the service was managed including staffing rotas, recruitment, training and quality assurance.

After the inspection

We asked the registered manager to send us further documentation following the inspection which included copies of the training records, the staff rota and minutes of staff meetings. We spoke with more care staff by telephone. These comments and the evidence that was supplied were considered when writing this report.

Updated 17 January 2020

About the service

Liberty House is a residential home providing personal care to seven people, some with mental health needs and others with a learning disability. There were six people living in the home at the time of the inspection. The care home supports people in an adapted residential property.

The service did not consistently apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These when applied consistently ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible life outcomes for themselves that include control, choice and independence. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Environmental risks had not been fully assessed to ensure people were safe. Medicines were stored and administered safely, improvements were needed to ensure ‘as required’ medicines were administered safely. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service being provided. However, these were not fully effective and did not fully protect people in the home.

Some people were supported to have choice and control of their lives, however staff practices were restrictive and did not support people’s individual choices.

Recruitment checks had been carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with people at the service. Staffing levels were adequate to provide individual support and good overall levels of care. Risks that people presented had been assessed prior to them moving into the home.

The staff team felt involved in the running of the home and felt supported by the registered and deputy managers. Training for staff was linked to people’s support needs. Staff had supervision from the registered or deputy manager where they discussed how best to meet people’s needs. Staff responded to and supported people’s health and care needs.

People were provided with a varied diet which met their individual cultural needs. People were encouraged to develop self-help skills which enabled a progression toward expanding people’s individual skills and ultimately independent living.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their consent was obtained prior to staff offering care. People were supported by a staff team who were kind and caring and treated them in a considerate and respectful manner. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs informed by care and support plans, some areas such as oral care needed to be added in care plans. There was a complaints process in place which was managed effectively. Staff had considered people’s end of life choices and referred to this in care plans.

People’s views of the service were sought through meetings and surveys. The registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities as a registered person. They worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received care and support that was consistent with their assessed needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The last inspection was July 2017 when the rating was Good.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.