CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cumberland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control arrangements, including testing, visiting, admissions, hygiene and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured about PPE because some floors did not have PPE stations and some used-PPE bins were not foot operated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control overall, but PPE access and disposal needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 21 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were affecting the home.
The home was meeting most infection control expectations. Inspectors were assured about visiting, social distancing, safe admissions, testing, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection control policy. People could often go out independently, and they were tested when they returned.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used safely and effectively. Not every floor had a PPE station, and not all bins for used PPE were foot operated. The service was not given an overall or Safe rating in this inspection.
Testing after outings
People could go out independently, and the home tested people again when they returned to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“A robust testing regime ensured all people were re-tested on returning to the home to minimise the risk of spreading the virus within the home.” from the report
Support with anxiety
Staff reassured people whose anxiety had increased during the pandemic and explained the latest guidance.
“Staff spent time reassuring people whose anxiety had increased due to the pandemic, explaining the latest guidance and supporting people by spending time talking to them.” from the report
Most infection controls in place
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for safe visiting, admissions, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
PPE access and disposal
needs fixingPPE was not always easy for staff to access quickly because some floors had no PPE station. Some bins for used PPE were also not foot operated.
“Not every floor of the home had PPE stations where staff could quickly access fresh PPE if needed.” from the report
- 01Have PPE stations now been placed on every floor, so staff can quickly access fresh PPE?
- 02Are all bins used for disposing of PPE now foot operated?
- 03How are people tested when they return to the home after going out?
- 04How does the home support people whose anxiety increases during periods of infection control restrictions?
- 05What were the staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and did they affect people living at the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with no breaches reported.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 and 9 August 2019. One inspector spoke with six people, two relatives, six staff members and three visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, accidents, training and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe and protected from abuse. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were recorded correctly and the home was clean. Staff received relevant training and supported people to access health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's choices, routines and interests. People could usually come and go as they wished, choose their meals and take part in activities. The manager had systems for audits, handovers, feedback and learning from incidents.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 22 March 2017.
Quick response to call bells
Inspectors heard call bells used five times and saw staff respond immediately each time.
“On every occasion these were responded to immediately.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean and free from unpleasant smells or obvious hazards. Fire, water and other safety checks were carried out.
“The home was clean, tidy and free from unpleasant odours.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and were shown respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, interests and personal histories. Staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“People received person centred care and staff knew them well.” from the report
Good links with professionals
The home worked with GPs, nurses, pharmacists, mental health professionals and advocates to meet people's needs.
“The registered manager worked in partnership with other services and professionals” from the report
Limited complaints information
minorThe complaints process was available, but very few complaints had been made recently. This meant inspectors could not identify any patterns or themes.
“Because there were so few recent complaints there was not enough data to draw any conclusions or identify any themes.” from the report
- 01How would you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and changes to risk assessments?
- 02How do you record complaints and check for recurring problems when few complaints have been made?
- 03What support would my relative receive to access mental health, GP, nursing and other health appointments?
- 04What activities, outings and community links would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's choices if they refused personal care, food, medicines or an activity?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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.
Every inspection of Cumberland House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
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.