CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cumberland Gate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and staff understood how to protect people from harm. Staffing levels and recruitment processes were appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People were helped with food, healthcare, independence and decision-making, and the service followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm and respectful relationships. People were supported to make choices, keep family relationships and have privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's individual needs, preferences and communication methods. People took part in regular activities, including activities in the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service had effective quality checks and promoted person-centred care. However, an interim manager was in place after the registered manager had recently left, while the permanent manager was absent through sickness.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with an interim manager in place during a management change.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection on 24 April 2019. One inspector reviewed records, medicines processes and the home, observed daily care, and spoke with staff and two relatives.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staffing was suitable, and staff knew the people well.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities in the community. Care records were detailed and up to date. Relatives gave positive feedback about the care and management.
The previous inspection, published on 28 October 2016, also rated the home Good. At this inspection, there was no registered manager in place because of a recent change, but an interim manager was supported by the area manager.
Building independence
People were supported to develop skills and have more control over their daily lives, including cooking, shopping, laundry and personal care.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing and infection control were managed safely.
“Medicines were managed safely by appropriately trained staff. Medication was administered in conjunction with guidance and instructions; medication administration records (MARs) were appropriately completed.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and were observed treating them warmly, kindly and with respect.
“It was clear from observations that staff had developed strong relationships with people.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were planned around people's preferences and included regular opportunities to go into the local community and visit family.
“People were supported to access a range of activities in the community on a regular basis.” from the report
Good communication
Pictures, photographs and picture boards helped people make choices and understand their daily plans.
“Pictures and photographs were used to enable people to make their own choices; picture boards were used to remind people of their activities for a particular day.” from the report
Management transition
minorThere was no registered manager managing the home at the time of the inspection. An interim manager was in place, supported by the area manager, while the permanent manager was absent through sickness.
“At the time of the inspection the service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission; the registered manager had very recently left the service.” from the report
- 01Who is managing the home now, and has the permanent home manager applied to become the registered manager?
- 02How are risks reviewed when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 03How will you support my relative to build independence in daily tasks such as cooking, shopping and personal care?
- 04How are activities planned around each person's preferences, and how often do people go into the community?
- 05How will you involve our family in care planning and tell us about any changes or concerns?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering the care home, the care provided and all five CQC question areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 2019 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, October 2016
Rated Good overall, but Safe required improvement because medicines processes and fire safety checks were not always reliable.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 16 September 2016. The inspector spoke with staff, one person living at the home and two relatives. They also observed care, checked the home and reviewed care, staff, training and safety records.
The inspectors found kind and patient care. People were supported to make choices, build independence, stay healthy and take part in activities. Relatives gave positive feedback, and staff were described as committed.
The main concerns were about medicines being stored without clear labels, two fire doors being wedged open and some safety checks not being properly monitored. The home acted on some issues during or after the inspection. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while the other four areas were rated Good.
An overall Good rating means the inspectors found the service generally met people's needs, but it was not consistently safe in every area. The previous inspection in 2013 found no concerns.
Kind and patient care
Inspectors saw staff offering comfort, companionship and support without rushing people. Staff adapted their approach when people became anxious.
“Staff treated people with patience, warmth and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans covered people's needs, wishes, communication, health, nutrition, safety and abilities. They were reviewed and updated regularly.
“Care plans were detailed, up to date and addressed a number of areas including communication, health and wellbeing, medicines, nutrition, personal hygiene and safety.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make choices, take part in everyday tasks and develop skills. Communication tools such as photographs and symbols helped people take part.
“People were given time to carry out tasks as a means to promote independence and were not rushed.” from the report
Active community lives
People were supported to attend activities such as discos, work placements, horse riding and the library.
“Records showed people received regular support to enable them to be active members of their community.” from the report
Medicine storage and checks
seriousOne person's medicine had been removed from its box and stored without a label showing who it belonged to or how much should be given. The manager acted immediately, but inspectors recommended reviewing the process.
“There were no labels on the bottle to show who the medicine belonged to and how much was to be administered.” from the report
Fire doors
seriousNew carpets stopped two fire doors closing automatically, and both were wedged open. The person's preference for an open door had not been risk assessed or managed in another way.
“We found two fire doors were wedged open.” from the report
Oversight of safety audits
needs fixingThe manager could not find records showing that fire evacuation drills had taken place and was unclear about what the health and safety audit covered.
“General audits carried out by staff on a routine basis were not always monitored by the registered manager.” from the report
DoLS record
needs fixingOne approved Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation was not referred to in the person's care plan. The report says this was corrected after the inspection.
“Although one application had been approved, we found there was no reference to this within the person's care plan.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine bottle is clearly labelled and checked before it is stored or given?
- 02How are fire doors checked now, and how do you balance people's preferences with fire safety?
- 03Where are fire evacuation drill records kept, and who checks that all required safety audits are completed?
- 04Has the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation been recorded correctly in the relevant care plan?
- 05How will you show that the improvements mentioned after this inspection have been maintained?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five rated areas, with observations, discussions, record checks and a review of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 2016 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 Gate
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 2011.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.