Liberty House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 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. Accidents and incidents were analysed and trends and patterns mitigated to prevent future risks. The management team had a process in place to learn lessons when things went wrong. Practice was changed as a result of lessons learnt and improvements made to better the service.

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. Hospital packs were generated from the electronic care planning system. This gave up to date details regarding people's care and current support and included recent care documentation. This ensured a streamlined approach to people’s care and support.

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. Staff were knowledgeable about recognising and responding to abuse and took appropriate actions to keep people safe. The management team kept a record of safeguarding concerns and took action to improve practice where appropriate. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were understood by the registered manager and there were processes in place to review people’s capacity in line with the MCA. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA. People had care plans in place to ensure DoLS were recorded and people supported in line with them.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. People’s care was delivered in line with their care plans and risk assessments were reflective of people’s needs. One relative said, “[Family member] is safe and all the staff are really good, and I can talk to them. [Family member] gets good care here.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental checks were completed in line with expected standards. Comprehensive records were available and were organised and maintained to a high standard. Risks associated with the care environment were assessed and action taken to mitigate risks. Personal emergency evacuation plans [PEEP’s] were in place to ensure people were supported appropriately to exit the home in an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff were recruited safely, and pre-employment checks were completed appropriately. Staff received training and support to carry out their role well. Staff told us they felt the current management team were approachable and felt supported. One staff member said, “I have regular supervisions. They [management team] are supportive and give me the chance to discuss my progress, any concerns, and development goals. My manager is approachable and always available for support.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. We carried out a tour of the home and found the home to be clean and well maintained. We saw staff adhered to good infection prevention and control guidance. People told us their home was kept clean. One person said, “My room is nice, and it is cleaned every day.”

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. Medicine management systems were well organised and ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. People who were prescribed medicines on an as and when required basis, had protocols in place to ensure safe administration. Staff responsible for administering medicines, received training and had their competencies checked to ensure they could administer medicines safely. Frequent medicines audits took place to ensure stock balances and medication records tallied.