Liberty Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The people and their relatives confirmed with us that no incident or accidents had occurred. The registered manager told us there had not been any significant accidents or incidents, safeguarding allegations or complaints received over the past 4 years.

The service had a procedure for staff to follow should things go wrong. The staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of how to respond to any such incident. Relevant policies provided guidance about how to respond if necessary.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service to ensure the service was able to meet them. This helped to achieve a smooth transition from one setting to another. People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process, so their views and wishes were taken into account. A relative told us, “We were fully involved and were part of our relatives’ transition into the service. The provider continued to involve us in care reviews and update us about our relative’s health and well-being. We are very impressed with the service.” Another relative told us, “We have good communication with Liberty Care, and they provide parenting sessions and they mark and support my [relative’s] achievements in academic and social activities.”

Staff demonstrated good knowledge about how to provide care and support when people started using their service. People and relatives told us they were aware of who they could contact if they needed to raise any concerns.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People, and their relatives, told us they felt safe receiving a service from the provider. People confirmed they knew how to raise complaints or concerns. A relative told us, “The provider worked well with social services. We never got disappointed. There was no reason to make complaint. We know how to make a complaint.”

The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations for the past 4 years. Appropriate systems were in place to help protect people from abuse and neglect. The provider had relevant policies including safeguarding adults and whistleblowing. The safeguarding policy made clear the providers responsibility for reporting any allegations of abuse to the local authority and Care Quality Commission.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures. They knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to tell us the signs of abuse. A member of staff told us, “Concerns are reported to the manager. Anything such as assault, things which are more serious are reported to Police, CQC and local authority”.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The care plans we reviewed provided information about the person’s diagnosis, hobbies, interests, lifestyle, care and support required as well as the potential risks to the person. Not all risk assessments were detailed to mitigate the risks to the people using the service.

The provider completed the relevant risk assessments to keep people safe, but they were not detailed. For example, a care plan we reviewed indicated that a person using the service was at risk of choking. The provider outlined the risks but did not make any referrals to the SALT team. For the same person, a risk assessment was completed concerning their pacemaker device, but it was not detailed.

Another care plan we reviewed indicated the person was being supported with preparing and cooking food but there was no detailed risk assessment completed for them to use the kitchen, including using equipment such as knives and hot pots safely. However, we found no evidence people had been harmed by these risks. Following our recommendations, the provider added further details to risk assessments and also made a referral to SALT team.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning their care which involved managing risks to their safety. A person told us, “Liberty Centre do very well in managing my [relative’s] behaviour and needs, I discussed with them any concerns that I have, and they addressed it properly, they take very good care of their health.”

Staff were aware of the risks to people and the steps they would take to keep them safe from harm.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. However, we would expect providers to mitigate the risks to people in their own houses and maintained the premises to health and safety standards. Various checks were carried out on the physical environment to help ensure it was safe. These included tests by qualified contractors relating to fire, gas, electricals and water safety.

As a part of our inspection, we visited one of the supported living settings and met with people using the service. We found the environment clean and safe. Relevant health and safety checks were conducted regularly.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living. However, we would expect providers to mitigate the risks to people in their own houses and maintained the premises to health and safety standards. Various checks were carried out on the physical environment to help ensure it was safe. These included tests by qualified contractors relating to fire, gas, electricals and water safety.

As a part of our inspection, we visited one of the supported living settings and met with people using the service. We found the environment clean and safe. Relevant health and safety checks were conducted regularly.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

To mitigate risks to people in their own home, the provider completed various audits including infection prevention and control, on a monthly basis, but they did not follow their action plan. For example, an infection prevention and control audit was carried out in January 2026 which identified issues with the cleaning schedule, and that the communal toilet required pedal bins and concealed toilet tissue dispensers. These issues remained outstanding on the audit summaries for February and March 2026. This meant appropriate action not taken regarding infection prevention control. This put people at risk of infection. The registered manager acknowledged this and assured us they would address these issues.

On our second visit to one of the supported living sites, we found these issues had been addressed. The cleaning rota was in place, and the bin had been replaced.

The provider had a policy in place for infection prevention and control to provide clear guidance to staff in this area. All the staff completed training in infection prevention and control and demonstrated a good understating of the measures to manage and prevent the spread of infection. Staff were provided with personal protective equipment [PPE] and they confirmed they had access to enough PPE.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

We reviewed medicine records and no concerns were identified. The medicine records were kept up to date, and they were regularly audited by a senior member of staff. People medicines were reviewed by a healthcare professional.

The provider had effective medicines management systems in place. For example, staff had received training in medicines administration, medication competencies assessments were conducted and there were relevant up-to-date policies in place.