Livingstone House

Livingstone House provides residential care and support for up to six individuals with learning disabilities and autism. This inspection report from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) offers an overview of the service's performance across five key areas. The report indicates that the service requires improvement in several aspects, with particular concerns noted regarding its overall leadership.

Regarding safety, the home had safeguarding concerns raised due to the recurrence of incidents, meaning controls were not adequate. While staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities, there were issues with incident recording which missed opportunities for learning and preventing future harm. Medicine management also presented challenges, with handwritten records, incorrect medication quantities, and inadequate temperature monitoring, though improvements in these areas have since been reported. Staffing levels were frequently below the recommended numbers, impacting the consistency of care and causing concern among families and professionals. However, infection control measures were generally robust.

In terms of how effective the care is, staff induction and training processes were inconsistent, with many staff not having completed essential training such as the Care Certificate. Supervision and appraisal records were also found to be lacking, leaving staff without regular support. While some mandatory training rates were very low, there is a commitment from the provider to review and improve these figures.

When considering how caring the service is, the report notes that while staff were generally respectful, low staffing levels meant that residents were not always receiving the personalised care they needed. Opportunities for residents to engage in individual activities tailored to their interests were limited, with a greater focus on group activities. There was also a noted impact on independence and choice.

On the subject of being responsive, the service's care plans were not always regularly reviewed or updated, meaning staff did not always have clear guidance on how to support individuals safely. Residents were not always supported to have maximum choice and control in their daily lives, and timely access to specialist health support was not always ensured. Engagement with families has recently improved, but was previously insufficient.

Finally, in relation to how well-led the service is, there was a significant lack of effective governance and quality assurance systems. Audits and actions taken when issues arose were not consistently documented or completed, hindering service improvements. Some care staff felt unsupported by senior management, and there were missed opportunities for staff to learn from incidents and improve practice due to ineffective systems. A registered manager was also not in post at the time of the inspection.