CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cumberland Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were managed safely, staff understood safeguarding procedures, medicines were administered safely and there were enough safely recruited staff. Some care plans had limited information about risks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act. Some mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions and information about oral care were missing or incomplete.
- Caring?
- Good
- A rating was not given for this key question in this inspection report. People and visitors gave positive feedback, and inspectors saw people relaxed and engaging with staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- A rating was not given for this key question in this inspection report. Inspectors found that some care plans did not reflect people's needs, preferences or the support they received.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Care records were incomplete or conflicting, and audits had not identified or dealt with several shortfalls. There was a positive culture and the provider and manager understood that improvements were needed.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care and a positive culture, but weaknesses in consent, care records and service oversight.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 May 2023. One inspector reviewed records, medicines, care plans, risk assessments and audits. They spoke with people, visitors, staff and health and social care professionals, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines processes, infection control and safeguarding arrangements. Staff knew people well and understood their risks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Some mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were missing or unclear. Care plans and daily records did not always describe people's needs or the care given. Oral care and the tidiness of some areas also needed improvement.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published on 27 July 2019, to Requires Improvement. The report identified breaches of Regulation 11, Need for consent, and Regulation 17, Good governance.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff working on the shifts observed, and staff had been recruited safely. People were attended to promptly.
“People were attended to promptly.” from the report
Staff knew people well
The staff team was consistent and understood people's risks and how to support them. Inspectors observed staff responding to people who were distressed.
“Staff were aware of the risks associated with the people they supported.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. The home also had suitable infection prevention and control arrangements.
“Systems were in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Positive culture
People, visitors and staff gave positive feedback about the home. People were regularly asked for their views through discussions, meetings and surveys.
“There was a positive culture at the service.” from the report
Consent and capacity
seriousThe home did not always complete decision-specific mental capacity assessments or record best interest decisions. Some care plans were signed by staff without legal authority to consent on a person's behalf.
“The provider was not always following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousSome care plans were too basic, conflicting or did not reflect people's changing needs. Daily records did not always show that oral care, continence support, pressure checks or activities had been provided.
“Care records were inconsistent and did not always detail the needs of people.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits were in place but had not found several problems, and known shortfalls identified earlier had not been fully addressed.
“The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Oral care
needs fixingSome people did not have toothbrushes or toothpaste even though their care plans said they needed help with oral hygiene.
“We identified that some people did not have toothbrushes or toothpaste.” from the report
Environment
minorSome parts of the home were untidy, and improvements were needed to decoration, communal areas, bathrooms and odours. Plans were in place to carry out work over time.
“Areas of the home were untidy, for example, bathroom cupboards contained items of clothing, body creams and toiletries.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the missing or unclear mental capacity assessments and recorded best interest decisions?
- 02How do you now make sure each person's care plan reflects their current mobility, falls, pressure care, continence and personal hygiene needs?
- 03How do you check and record that oral care, pressure area checks, continence support and activities are provided every day?
- 04What action has been taken in response to the two regulatory breaches, and can we see the improvement plan?
- 05What work has been completed to improve the untidy areas, bathrooms, communal spaces and odours?
This inspection looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected carry over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements, with foot-operated PPE bins bought during the visit.
This was a targeted inspection on 3 March 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The visit was announced with two days' notice.
Inspectors found the home was clean and tidy. They were assured that visitors, admissions, testing, PPE, hygiene and infection outbreaks were being managed safely. Family visits were supported through an appointment system, including private visits in people's bedrooms.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for the five areas of care. Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with frequently touched areas cleaned regularly.
“Systems in place ensured areas of the home that were frequently touched, such as light switches and door handles were cleaned regularly.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends. Visits could take place privately in bedrooms and were organised through an appointment system.
“Visitors were welcomed to the home; they were able to meet with loved ones in their bedrooms which allowed them time together in private.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found that PPE was available in sufficient amounts and used appropriately. Testing arrangements for people, staff and visitors were being followed.
“PPE was available throughout the home and staff were seen to be using this appropriately. There was adequate stock available.” from the report
Infection-control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention, admissions, social distancing and possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
PPE bins
minorPPE disposal bins were not foot operated when inspectors visited. The provider bought foot-operated bins during the inspection after this was discussed.
“We saw the provider was not using foot operated bins for the disposal of PPE.” from the report
- 01Have the foot-operated PPE bins bought during the inspection remained in use?
- 02How are visitors currently tested and supported to visit family members privately?
- 03How are infection outbreaks prevented or managed now?
- 04How do you check that PPE stocks and use remain adequate?
- 05Have there been any changes in staffing pressures since the inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide a full set of quality ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Cumberland Court
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inadequate
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 October 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.