Liversage Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy.

We received mixed feedback regarding staff kindness. A person said, “A few do their jobs to the utmost and will carry on working until the last moment. Others don’t seem to care and there’s no sympathy.” Another person said, “Some staff make you feel a nuisance. I had a go at one of them and they apologised. One member of staff I don’t take to. I put up with it but it’s the attitude and the way they speak abruptly to other people. I can’t complain about the others really.” However, another person said, “They’re all nice people.” Another person said, “The staff are very nice and kind to me.” We raised an issue regarding a staff member’s manner during the assessment with management who took action.

People told us that their privacy was respected. A person said, “They’ll shut my door and curtains when I’m getting up or going to bed.” Another person said, “I like my door shut all the time and that is respected.”

However, we observed that confidential personal information regarding people was clearly displayed on each person’s bedroom door. We asked management to take action in relation to this.

We reviewed the care records for a person with a learning disability living at the home. Terminology used within parts of the care record was inappropriate, which we raised with management for review.
 

People were supported to have their religious and cultural beliefs respected, including access to faith-based activities and opportunities to observe religious practices where this was important to them.

Care plans included clear information about people’s dietary preferences, including cultural, ethical and religious requirements, which staff understood and followed in practice.

People’s experiences of independence, choice and control were mixed. Some people, particularly those with better mobility, described having good levels of independence and choice in their daily lives. One person said, “I’ve got freedom to go out for a walk round or look at the shops. I just let the staff know,” Another person said, “It’s up to me what I decide to do – often I’ll chill in my room, or might join in some games.”

However, one person said their independence was not always promoted, “They’re usually rushed getting me up so I get to wash my face and brush my hair but that’s about it.”

People had some opportunities to engage in activities and make choices about how they spent their time. A person said, “I like to join in the morning exercises… I like to watch or have a go at anything going on.” Another person said, “I can do what I want… and join in things.” We reviewed the care records of a person with a learning disability. They did not have an activities care plan in place and recorded activities were very limited. We raised this with management who have put in a plan to address this.

Information on visiting arrangements was inconsistent. The provider’s visiting policy stated that there were no restrictions on visiting but relatives referred to some restrictions and a notice was displayed in reception stating that visits could not be facilitated after 6pm. We raised this with management and the notice was taken down and we were told that this information was not correct. A relative said, “We just have to avoid lunchtime.” Another relative said, “I come… usually for the morning, as there’s not a lot of evening visits now.”

Most people felt that their needs were responded to promptly when they used their call bell. A person said, “I don’t use mine a lot but if I do, they come quite quickly.” Another person said, “I ring to ask for a drink mainly and don’t wait ages and ages.” However, another person said, “I have to ring for everything as no one is ready with help unless I ask for it. It can vary how quickly someone comes but I’ve waited an hour or more sometimes. They sometimes say they’ll be back but that can be 20-30 minutes later or more. They do come back eventually, and late evening is mainly the long waits.” We observed call bells being responded to fairly promptly during the assessment, however, the call bell report for the two days of assessment showed some delayed response to call bells.

Support plans were in place to provide guidance for staff on how to respond promptly and effectively to people in distress, however, these could be further developed and staff did not receive training on supporting people in distress.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they had good relationships with management and that staff worked well together.

Supervisions and team meetings provided opportunities for staff to raise any wellbeing concerns. Policies were in place to support staff wellbeing.