The Cumberland

This report from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) provides an overview of the inspection of The Cumberland, a residential care home. It details the findings across key areas of care provision, including safety, effectiveness, how caring the staff are, how responsive the service is to residents' needs, and the quality of leadership. The inspection focused on assessing how well the service manages risks and its overall leadership, building on previous findings. Families considering this home will find information here to help them understand the current state of the service, highlighting both areas of strength and those requiring attention to ensure the best possible care for their loved ones.

In terms of safe care, residents generally felt safe, and long-standing staff knew their preferences well. However, there were instances where risks to residents were not fully assessed or managed, and guidance for staff, particularly agency staff, was inconsistent. The storage and management of medicines also presented risks, with issues noted in transcribing changes, secure storage, and the use of covert medication administration. Safeguarding checks and infection control measures required further development.

Regarding effective care, staff demonstrated knowledge and skills to meet residents' needs, with positive feedback from relatives about their capabilities. Support for residents to maintain their independence was a focus, with staff encouraging self-care. However, the environment had not been fully developed to support individuals living with dementia, with a recommendation made for improvements in dementia-friendly design.

The care provided was described as generally kind and respectful, with staff supporting residents in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests, aligned with the Mental Capacity Act. Residents and their relatives reported feeling well cared for. There were positive steps taken to manage anxiety and agitation in residents, leading to an improvement in their quality of life.

In relation to responsiveness, the service supported residents to have maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff were attentive to residents' needs, with relatives noting regular checks and comfort. When incidents occurred, lessons were learned and actions were taken to prevent recurrence, including analysis of accidents and incidents for patterns. Safeguarding referrals were appropriately made when needed.

Concerningly, the service was not always well-led. While the manager was realistic about improvements needed and staff noted positive cultural changes, there were significant gaps in leadership and oversight. The manager was not yet registered with the CQC, and provider checks and audits had not always identified all shortfalls. Actions planned to address identified issues were not always completed within set timescales. Staffing levels were inconsistent, impacting the ability to meet residents' needs promptly and leading to staff fatigue. There was also a lack of a consistently effective system for deploying staff to meet all needs, particularly in communal areas. Recruitment processes had improved, but some minor shortfalls remained.