Archived: Liberty Choice

Liberty Choice is a domiciliary care provider. At the time of this inspection 13 people received personal care support from the service. The service supported older people, some of who were living with dementia and people with physical disabilities, within their own homes.

Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At the time of this inspection the service was relocating from the address shown on page one of this report to Unit 7, Scylla Estates, Winnall Valley Road, Winchester, Hants, SO23 0LD. An application to change the address of the provider had been received and was in process with the Care Quality Commission. The address where this inspection was undertaken was, Unit 7 Scylla Estates, Winnall Valley Road, Winchester, Hants, SO23 0LD.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People received a service that was safe. The provider had systems and processes in place to manage medicines safely

• Staff were aware of the risk of abuse, signs to look out for, and how to report any concerns.

• There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to support people safely according to their needs.

• People received care and support from staff who were trained sufficiently and had the right skills and knowledge. People’s care and support led to good outcomes.

• People and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support they received from Liberty Choice. They described the care staff as kind and helpful.

• Care workers had developed good relationships with people they supported. They respected people’s dignity and privacy, and promoted their independence.

• People were actively involved in their care and support decisions with their relatives where appropriate.

• People’s needs were reflected in care plans which contained detailed information about how they wished to receive care and support.

• People and relatives confirmed that people were treated with dignity, respect and that their independence was promoted.

• Management processes were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.

• There was a positive culture within the staff team, and staff told us they enjoyed working for the service.

• The registered manager was supported to deliver high quality care by the management team and a staff team who understood the need to deliver good quality care.

Rating at last inspection:

• At the last inspection in January 2017 the service was rated Good. At this inspection the service remained good.

Why we inspected:

• We inspected the service as part of our inspection schedule methodology for ‘Good’ rated services.

Follow up:

• We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within our published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

Liberty Choice provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 36 people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age. The agency was managed from a centrally located office base in Winchester.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Liberty Choice to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. However, dates weren’t clear in staff employment histories. Therefore it was not possible to identify whether there were any gaps in between jobs. The manager was aware of our concerns and actions to address them were put in place.

The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments, staff were aware of how to keep people safe and the information provided staff with clear guidelines to follow.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development. Staff meetings were held regularly. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits to meet people’s needs.

People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. People received their medicines safely. Staff had an understanding of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in people’s care plans. Care plans provided comprehensive information which helped ensure people received personalised care. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and could visit the office to discuss any concerns. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

People described a courteous and professional team of staff who had for some become "like friends." People said that staff stayed the required amount of time and did the things that were expected of them.

People's needs were assessed and a plan of care was agreed with them. Clear records and good verbal communication ensured that when anyone's needs changed the staff supporting them were aware. This helped to ensure the welfare and safety of each person.

There were sufficient staff employed to meet the needs of people who used the agency. This included office staff who coordinated care and provided additional support where necessary.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. The agency ensured that new staff were given a thorough induction so that they understood the aims and objectives of the service and what was required of them. Staff spoke highly of the training provided which was thorough, regular and gave them the opportunity to ask questions and clarify any areas of uncertainty. Staff were further supported by an enthusiastic and motivated manager, by regular supervision sessions and by weekly meetings.