CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Cumberland
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but serious concerns about medicines, staffing, risk assessments and management checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 August 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment records and management checks.
People and relatives said they felt safe and that staff were kind and knew them well. Staff supported people to eat, drink and move safely. They also helped reduce anxiety and supported people to keep their independence.
However, some risks had not been properly assessed or explained to staff. Medicines were not always stored or managed safely. There were times when there were not enough staff, and care records were not accurate or easy to access. Management checks had missed important problems.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home must improve, and the CQC said it would continue to monitor the service.
Kind, familiar care
Long-standing staff knew people well and supported them in their preferred ways. Inspectors observed kind and respectful care.
“We observed staff providing care safely and in a kind and respectful way.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and said they would raise concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they were safe living at The Cumberland.” from the report
Safe eating and drinking
Staff knew how to support people at risk of choking, and meals and drinks were prepared to the right consistency.
“We observed people being supported to eat and drink safely by staff who supported them at their own pace.” from the report
Support to reduce anxiety
The manager worked with mental health professionals, and staff said people's anxiety and agitation had reduced. Medicines used for this purpose were limited where possible.
“Staff felt people's anxiety or agitation had decreased over the previous few months.” from the report
Improving staff teamwork
Staff said communication, support and teamwork had improved. A longer rota was also being introduced to give staff more stability.
“All the staff we spoke with told us communication between the manager and staff had improved and they felt supported.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousSome risks, including falls, pressure ulcers and evacuation needs, were not fully assessed. Staff did not always have clear instructions on how to manage them.
“Risks to people had been identified but had not been consistently assessed.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousMedicine changes were not always recorded correctly. Some medicines and thickening powders were not securely stored, and guidance for some medicines was missing or incomplete.
“People's medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Staffing was sometimes too low
seriousThere were periods when planned staffing levels were reduced, agency shifts went uncovered, and the manager had to provide care instead of completing management work.
“The provider had failed to consistently deploy sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs promptly.” from the report
Care records were not reliable
seriousCare plans were not always updated when people's needs changed. Electronic records were difficult to access, which could prevent staff from finding information promptly.
“People were not protected by accurate and up to date records around their care needs.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
seriousAudits and improvement plans had missed shortfalls or had not completed actions within the planned timescales. This meant risks were not always dealt with quickly.
“The provider did not have effective systems in operation to learn lessons and continuously improve the service.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment needed
needs fixingThe home did not have enough signs, clocks, pictures or symbols to help people living with dementia move around and make choices independently.
“The provider had not developed an environment which support people living with dementia to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure every person's risks, including falls, pressure ulcers and evacuation needs, are clearly assessed and explained to staff?
- 02How are medicines, including thickening powders and covert medicines, now stored, recorded and checked?
- 03How do you ensure there are enough trained staff on every shift when permanent or agency staff are unavailable?
- 04Have all care plans been reviewed and updated, and can staff access them quickly during a shift?
- 05Which actions from the inspection have been completed, and how does the provider now check that improvements are working?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 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, May 2018
The Cumberland was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with less evidence of innovative caring practice than at the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 April 2018. One inspector reviewed care, risk and medicine records, staff records and meetings, observed care, and spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals.
The home supported up to 29 women living with dementia, with 25 people living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans, good infection control and a clean, well-maintained building.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was tailored to people's routines and preferences, including food, activities, health support and end of life wishes. The home remained Good in all five areas, although caring fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff took time to understand each person and supported them at their own pace.
“Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff during the day and night. Staff were not rushed and responded promptly when people needed help.
“There were enough staff to provide the care and support people needed when they wanted it.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given, recorded and disposed of safely. Staff competency had been checked.
“People's medicines were managed safely and effective systems were in place to order, store, administer, record and dispose of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, routines and histories. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“A detailed assessment was completed which summarised people's needs and how they liked their support provided” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had activities and pastimes they enjoyed, and were supported to keep relationships with friends and relatives.
“People continued to take part in a range of activities and pastimes including listening to music” from the report
Management oversight
Managers checked records, staff practice and incidents, and acted on shortfalls. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive.
“The registered manager continued to have oversight of the service and completed random checks on care records” from the report
Less innovative caring practice
minorCaring was rated Good rather than Outstanding because inspectors did not see enough innovative practice or continued development in how individual needs were met.
“The service had not demonstrated innovative practice or made continued improvements and developments as to how they met people's individual needs.” from the report
Complaints information was not fully accessible
needs fixingThe complaints process was available, but not in an easily accessible format. The provider had plans to improve this.
“The process to respond to complaints had been reviewed since our last inspection and was available to people and their representatives but was not available in an easily accessible format.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to provide more innovative care and continued improvements since this inspection?
- 02How will you make the complaints process available in an easily accessible format?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change or staff are absent?
- 04How are people's end of life wishes recorded, reviewed and followed?
- 05How will the move to electronic care records affect relatives' access to information about care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions and the care, accommodation and management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 2018 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 The Cumberland
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.