Liberty House

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.

This inspection took place on the 8 and 9 May 2017. Each visit lasted a half day and was carried out by one inspector.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

The service followed guidance in people’s risk assessments and care plans to reduce the risk of unsafe care. People’s records were up to date and indicated that care was provided as detailed in people’s assessments. The records had been updated to reflect changes in people’s care needs.

People were safeguarded from abuse because the provider had relevant guidance and staff training in place and staff were knowledgeable about the reporting procedure.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for people's care and safety needs and for reporting any related concerns. The provider's arrangements for staff training and their operational procedures supported this.

The principles and requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were understood but were not relevant to the service provided. People were supported by staff who took time to get to know them. Staff were aware how to promote people’s safety and independence. People were provided with information to support them to make day-to-day decisions.

At the time of our inspection both people were supported by staff with their medicines.

We spoke to one person and all the staff. People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and support. We have not included quotes from people using the service or specific examples about their care in this report. This is because we want to ensure their privacy and confidentiality is maintained.