Liversage Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 57 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Two people told us they did not get as many showers as they wanted. A person said, “I’ve not had a shower since I came out of hospital last year. I’d quite like one sometimes but just have a bed wash now. I suppose it’s too much time to hoist me to the shower when they’re busy.” Another person said, “I have to have a person with me now and I have a shower only once or twice a week, but I’d like a few more - they say they’ve not got enough staff to do more showers for me.”

A person told us that they were got up earlier than they wished. They said, “It’s not ideal as they get me up early and it’s not my choice.” We raised this with management to investigate further.

Other people felt that their needs were being met. A person said, “The staff are good to us. I’m happy with the help I get day to day.” A relative said, “They seem to care for [my family member] well and [they are] happy, which is the important thing.”

Support plans were in place which contained information on people’s personal preferences. Clinical needs were also documented.

Care was coordinated and continuous. Care plans reflected support from other services. However, not all staff completed all relevant training to ensure care provision fully met the needs of all people who used the service.

Staff received appropriate induction to support the provision of care and rotas showed continuity of care. A link staff member was in place for each person who used the service and we saw information regarding this in people’s bedrooms. A person commented on this, “It helps to have one and they get to know you. Mine accompanied me to a concert I wanted to go to.”

A number of staff had worked at the home for many years and no agency staff were being used at the home which also supported the continuity of care provided.

The provider supplied appropriate and accurate and up-to-date information in formats that could be tailored to individual needs. An accessible information standard policy was in place.

Care plans provided guidance for staff on how to communicate with people including those with diverse needs. However, we noted that a communication plan had not considered whether alternative formats for providing information for a person such as easy read information would better meet their needs.

Staff were able to explain how they responded to complaints. Complaints guidance was available to people who used the service and their relatives. However, the response to a complaint we reviewed did not include details of other bodies to go to if the complainant was dissatisfied with the response. A person who used the service told us they had raised concerns with management but were not clear what action had been taken.

People and family members we spoke with were not aware of any meetings. A person said, “I don’t know of any resident meetings, but I’ve only been here six months.” A family member said, “We’re not aware of any family meetings and don’t think they do a news sheet as haven’t seen anything. Sometimes there’s a poster in reception.”

We saw minutes of a meeting with people and relatives where feedback was obtained, however, this was in July 2025. We also saw the results of people, relatives, and professional surveys from July 2025. Feedback was generally positive. We also saw a newsletter from Spring/Summer 2025. A suggestion box was also available in the reception areas.

Everyone could access the care and support they needed. Care plans considered people’s needs and any adjustments that could be made to ensure they had equal access to services which included how their mobility and communication needs could be met.

Staff told us they were committed to ensuring everyone received equal and fair support and training was provided for staff in this area, however, not all staff had completed it.

People experienced fair and equitable care.

Policies were in place and care plans evidenced how people’s disabilities were considered, where appropriate, and support provided, for example, with mobility.

People’s diverse needs were also considered and guidance provided to staff to ensure they experienced equitable care. Training was provided for staff in this area; however, not all staff had completed it.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. An end of life care policy was in place.

Care plans were in place and were clear whether people wished to receive emergency care, however, they required further development to ensure they reflected people’s personalised wishes for care in the future. Staff did not receive any specialist end of life care training.