Liberty Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

People were happy with the care. Relatives were also happy with the care their family member received and felt the service was well run.

Staff reported that the registered manager was approachable and easy to talk with if they needed to raise any concerns.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the ethos of the service and were confident in their responsibilities. They understood their roles and felt well supported by the management team.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

This service was required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post who is also the owner of the business. They were supported in the running of the services by a service manager, operational manager, and senior carers. The registered manager had the experience, capability and integrity to ensure the organisational vision could be delivered, and risks were well managed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People who used the service told us they felt they could raise issues with the provider and that they would be addressed. There were systems in place to support the practice of being able to speak up, including a complaints procedure and whistle blowing policy. The registered manager held regular discussions with staff and people, giving them opportunities to speak up. The provider conducted surveys which gave people using the service the opportunity to provide feedback on the running of the service.

The registered manager told us they had an open-door policy towards staff contacting them. One member of staff told us, “The management is very supportive and empower us. They encourage us to do training. I can call manager anytime of the day if I require any assistance.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager informed us people using service were from various nationalities and backgrounds. All staff completed training on equality and diversity. People and their relatives were involved in care planning, and their wishes were documented in care plans. The provider encouraged people to celebrate festivals such as Christmas.

The provider had a policy in place on equality and diversity to guide practice in this area. Staff told us they were treated fairly by their employer. Staff recruitment was carried out in line with good practice.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a registered manager who had responsibility for the day to day running of the service. The registered manager confirmed they completed a number of audits as part of their quality assurance processes. However, we found quality assurance checks could be more effective. For example, the provider conducted a care plan audit, and one person’s care plan highlighted the risk of choking. However, the provider had not sought professional advice and made any referral to SALT.

To mitigate risks to people in their own home, the provider conducted an environment, health and safety and infection and prevention control audit, but the issues they identified had not been addressed for 3 months.

Whilst quality audits were undertaken to monitor the quality of care and steps were taken to improve, we found there was a lack of robust oversight in relation to audits of people’s support and risk management plans as these audits did not identify the shortfalls / concerns that we found during our inspection regarding risk of choking, infection control, and staff training.

The provider had not completed the annual CQC Provider Information Return (PIR) forms since December 2023. The provider acknowledged this happened due to an issue with their email address. The provider has completed the PIR.

The provider did not organise mandatory Learning disability and autism training for staff. The provider needed to ensure Learning disability training is up to date and in line with best practice. Staff were managing people’s needs in line with their care plan and were aware of people risk and how to manage them.

Following our recommendations, the provider took proactive steps to minimise the risks to people. Further details were added to risk assessments, referrals to the appropriate services were made, and staff completed their learning disability training. The registered manager also assured us that quality assurances process would be monitored closely to identify issues.

Staff told us they received regular spot checks to ensure they were providing the correct care and support.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The management team worked closely with the local authority and other professionals including GPs, pharmacy, dentists, and social workers to ensure continuous improvement in the care and support provided to people.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement. For example, the registered told us they regularly attended meeting with the local authority where other healthcare also participated and shared good best practices. In addition, they also attended Care Show to keep up with the latest trends, best practices, technologies and innovation.

During our inspection, the manger was receptive and keen to learn and improve service. The issues we identified during our inspection were addressed by the provider.