You are here

Liberty House Care Homes Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 November 2013
Date of Publication: 28 November 2013
Inspection Report published 28 November 2013 PDF


Inspection carried out on 2 November 2013

During a routine inspection

No one knew we would be inspecting that day as our inspection was unannounced.

Six people lived at Liberty House at the time of our inspection. However, only five people were available for us to meet and speak with as one person was staying at their parent�s house for the weekend.

During our inspection we spoke with two people who lived there, three staff, and the manager, who was also the owner of the home. All staff we spoke with told us that the people were well looked after and were safe. One staff member said, �I think that people are very well looked after�. Another staff member said, �People are safe here�.

We spoke with two of the people who lived there. They told us positive things about the service they received. One person told us, �I have lived here for a long time. I like it here it is good. I would not like to have to live anywhere else�. A second person said, �I do like it here�.

Other people who lived there had communication and other needs and were not able to tell us about the experiences of the care and support that they received. To address that during our inspection we used different methods to help us to understand people�s experiences, including observation. We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service. We saw that people were smiling and were confident to approach staff when they wanted something.

We determined that people were shown respect and their dignity was maintained. Staff supported people wherever possible to be independent and to make choices. People's needs had been assessed to ensure that their health, personal care, and safety needs were monitored and met. We found that there was ample opportunity for people to participate and engage in meaningful and interesting hobbies, activities and outings.

People had been provided with varied food and drink options that prevented malnutrition and dehydration and met their preferred needs.

We found that processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

We saw that the premises were adequately maintained, clean, comfortable and safe.

Although initially we had some concerns about staffing levels, we determined that generally staffing levels were adequate to ensure that people�s needs were met in the way that they preferred and that they were safe.

We saw that complaints processes were in place for people or their relatives to use if they were not happy with the service provided.