Liberty Centre

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and support choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were person-centred and reflected how they wished to be supported. The care plans we reviewed provided staff with details about the person’s health diagnosis, preferred staff, people important to them, their strengths, preferred food, allergies, activities including indoor and outdoor, and the level of support required on daily basis. The care plans we reviewed clearly stated the individual triggers that could make the person to react emotionally. The care plans outlined positive behaviour support strategies to manage person’s aggression.

The healthcare records we reviewed indicated people were supported in line with their preferences. For example, a person liked to listen to bible stories and Christian hymns before going to bed every day and staff have been supporting the person with this.

People and their relatives had been involved in developing their care plans to help ensure they reflected their needs and preferences. People and their relatives were given the opportunities to feedback about the support they received and make suggestions.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider shared information about people’s needs through personalised care plans, risk assessments, positive behaviour support plans and hospital passports, which supported continuity when people experienced changes such as hospital admissions or increased health risks.

Staff received induction training, shadowing experienced staff and had quarterly reviews to enable them to understand the needs of people. The provider worked with people and their relatives to provide consistent care. People’s needs were understood by staff. This was helped by regular team meeting where people’s needs were discussed. A member of staff told us, “We talk about our communication with families and the professionals we work with. We discuss events for people’s birthdays and the things we will do to celebrate them. There are de-briefing sessions in our team meetings to talk about things that happen and what we would do in the future.”

Information was shared between staff and the registered manager to ensure continuity of care. Care records included information from activities of daily living, cultural, religious and spiritual needs, important individuals, food preferences, eating and drinking and communication.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider assessed people’s communication needs and clearly documented accessible communication support in their care plan. For example, care plans clearly outlined the means of communication used by people using the service. This included Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), communication diaries, and physical gestures.

On our visit to the supported living setting, we met people who were about to leave to attend college. We observed a picture booklet demonstrating the journey to college. This helped them to understand and familiarise with the route to college. We also observed a pictural menu being used by the provider to enable people to make choices.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication needs. The provider had an Accessible Information Standard policy in place.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints policy in place. People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint, although they had not needed to do so. People and their relatives felt confident any concerns or complaints would be taken seriously and treated fairly.

People and their families had opportunities to provide feedback and ideas about their care and support. We saw a sample of feedback surveys which showed people were satisfied with the care received.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they required when they needed it.

The service also worked alongside other agencies such as the local authority and health care professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. People were supported to attend their annual health check-ups including medication reviews.

People and their relatives told us the provider checked in with them and reviewed their needs on a regular basis, and if further support was needed, they would help them to access the necessary care. The provider responded to any change in people’s needs appropriately.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had a policy on equality and diversity which helped to guide practice in this area and equality, and diversity needs were included within people’s care plans. People were able to choose the gender of their care staff, and this was clearly documented in the care plan we reviewed.

People were encouraged by the provider to access the community and community facilities. For example, people were supported to attend educational establishments as a part of planned care. A relative told us, “The manager helped my [relative] to access a place at college which they really enjoy attending and they are supported by a staff member when they attend.”

The provider organised an annual barbecue party and sports day which was attended by people using the service and their relative. A relative told us, “We were there on sports day. We won the trophy. Staff and other relatives were there too. They also shared the picture with us. It was fun for our relative. We are looking forward to it this year too.”

Staff supported people with various indoor and out activities such as snooker, arts and crafts, playing bible stories and Christian hymns, visits to local parks, trips to supermarkets and international trips.

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.

The care plans we reviewed clearly outlined the goals people wanted to achieve. There were clear guidance and instructions for staff, including how to work with the person to achieve those goals. The care plans had information about people’s decisions to refuse treatment should they became unwell. People using the service had hospital passport.

At the time of our inspection, not all the care plans included end-of-life care information. On our visit, we recommended the provider should attempt to discuss and document people’s end-of-life care wishes, choices and decisions, and record if person or their relatives were not ready to discuss yet. This would help health and social care professionals to make best interest decisions if required.