Liberty Lodge

Who the service is for

Liberty Lodge supports women with mental health needs.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment between 16 and 22 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Systems were in place to keep people safe. Staff had received training on safeguarding adults and were aware of the required reporting processes should they suspect someone to be at risk of harm. Staff assessed risks to people’s safety and plans were in place to instruct staff about how to support people to manage and mitigate those risks. One person’s mobility had changed since a prolonged period in hospital. Staff were able to tell us how they supported the person, including closer observation when using stairs, to mitigate any risks. However, we noted this change in the person’s support needs had not been updated in their care records. The registered manager assured us this would be reviewed and their records updated. Systems were in place to record and report any incidents or accidents that occurred, and we saw these were reviewed and action taken to minimise the risk of recurrence.

There were no undue restrictions to people’s liberty. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. There was some apprehension in the staff team about lone working arrangements at night and on weekends. However, a lone working policy was available, and an on-call system was in place should staff require additional support. The registered manager informed us they would further discuss staff’s apprehension about staffing levels during team meetings and individual supervision sessions. Staff completed the provider’s mandatory training and staff confirmed they were supported to complete additional training should they wish to. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to provide continuity of care. This included working with hospital staff when assessing people’s needs and supporting their transition to the home. Staff worked with people’s care coordinators from the community mental health team and supported people to attend medical appointments. The registered manager told us they had also been successful in supporting people, when ready, to move to more independent living settings.

There were systems in place to review the quality and safety of care delivery, including a programme of audits and regular manager’s meetings across the provider group. Where improvements were required, this had been identified and addressed.