Liversage Court Residential Home

Updated 24 April 2026

Date of assessment: 19 May 2026 to 26 May 2026.

The service is a residential care home providing personal care and support to older adults. At the time of the assessment the service supported 40 people.

The last ratings assessment of Liversage Court Residential Home was published 16 April 2019; the overall rating was Good. At this assessment the overall rating for Liversage Court Residential Home is Requires Improvement. This is based upon the findings at this assessment.

This assessment was carried out due to the length of time since the last rating.

Risks to people’s safety were not always effectively managed. Infection prevention and control practices were not sufficiently robust; medicines were not always managed safely, and environmental risks had not been fully identified or mitigated. Staffing deployment did not always support safe care, and some risks, including falls, were not consistently managed. Not all staff had completed all relevant training. These issues resulted in a breach of regulations relating to people’s safe care and staffing.

The environment and infection control arrangements did not always support people to remain safe. We identified a number of environmental risks, including unsafe access to some areas, maintenance issues and equipment that was not always functioning or appropriately set to meet people’s needs. Infection prevention and control systems were not effective, with concerns identified in relation to cleanliness, equipment and storage practices, despite people and relatives describing the home as generally clean. The provider took action to address concerns when raised; however, governance systems had not identified these issues.

Governance systems were not sufficiently effective to ensure the quality and safety of the service were consistently monitored and improved. Although audits and monitoring processes were in place, these did not reliably identify or address concerns identified during the assessment, including infection control, medicines management and care planning. In addition, required notifications had not always been submitted. These issues demonstrated a lack of effective oversight and resulted in a breach of regulation relating to governance.

People told us they felt safe and were generally supported to access healthcare services and maintain their health. Staff sought people’s consent and worked with external professionals appropriately. However, care was not always planned or delivered in line with best practice. Care records were not consistently accurate or detailed, people were not always involved in regular reviews and some clinical risks, including diabetes management and fluid monitoring, were not fully robust. Best interests’ decision-making was not always fully evidenced. These issues resulted in a breach of regulations relating to consent and person-centred care.

Privacy was not always respected. Information was not always kept confidential. This resulted in a breach of regulation relating to dignity and respect.

Although leadership was described as approachable and there was a generally positive culture, systems to drive improvement and learning were not always effective.

Updated 24 April 2026

People’s experience of safety was affected by inconsistent practice and oversight across the service. Although people generally told us they felt safe and staff said they could raise concerns, systems to learn from incidents were not always effective, and opportunities to improve care were missed. Safeguarding processes were in place and staff understood their responsibilities; however, not all staff had completed safeguarding training and required notifications were not always submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Some risks to people were not consistently managed, including the supervision of those at risk of falls.

People’s experiences of staffing and medicines management were mixed and did not always support safe care. Some people felt there were not enough staff and we observed periods where communal areas were not supervised, alongside delays in call bell responses and risks not consistently managed. Medicines were not always administered or recorded safely, and staff knowledge in key areas required improvement. Although recruitment processes were followed and staff received some training and support, not all relevant staff had completed all mandatory or role‑specific training.

People’s care was not always effectively assessed, planned and reviewed in line with their needs. Care plans were not consistently accurate, detailed or updated, and people were not always involved in regular reviews. Some clinical risks, including diabetes management and fluid monitoring, were not supported by clear or complete records. While people were generally supported to access healthcare professionals and maintain their health, aspects of care delivery did not always reflect current good practice.

Consent was sought in practice; however, best interests’ decision-making was not always clearly recorded, meaning it was not always evident decisions were made in line with legal requirements.

People’s experiences of care were mixed. While some people described staff as kind and felt able to make choices about their daily lives, others raised concerns about staff attitude, limited independence and delays in responding to requests.