At the time of the inspection there were 26 people accommodated at Cumbria House. We met and talked with eight people living in the home, three members of staff, and one visiting professional. The registered manager and deputy were present throughout the inspection and assisted us with providing documentation for us to view. We looked at people's care plans and other records relating to the management of the service. We also observed staff supporting people with their daily activities. We asked our five questions;
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
Is the service safe?
The service was safe. People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home and the staff supported them well.
Risks associated with people's care delivery were identified during assessments, and care plans contained sufficient guidance for staff to follow, to make sure they took a consistent approach to reduce the risks, so that people remained safe.
People were being cared for by trained and sufficient staff to make sure they were safe and receiving the care they needed.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events, such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded when required.
Is the service effective?
The service was effective. People told us that they were happy with the care that had been delivered and that their care needs were met. We saw that staff were attentive to people using the service and responded promptly when needed.
Care plans detailed people's personal routines. Staff knew the people well and demonstrated they knew how to care for the people in line with their preferences and choices.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Nutritional assessments had been carried out for each person. We saw that health professionals had been involved in these assessments and clear guidance about how to meet people's nutritional needs were recorded in people's care plans.
Is the service caring?
The service was caring. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People were given care and support by staff in a way that suited them best.
People were treated with dignity and had their privacy respected. We observed people making decisions as to what they wanted to do and staff respected this.
Is the service responsive?
Staff were responsive to people's needs and people told us that there was always someone around when they needed them. People's care and support plans were reviewed with their relatives and updated regularly to make sure they were receiving the care they needed.
There were systems in place to support people when they were unable to make complex decision to ensure decisions were made in people's best interest.
People had opportunities to undertake a range of activities and were being supported to maximise their independence and lead an active life.
People, staff and relatives were aware of the complaints procedure and told us they would contact the registered manager or deputy if they had any concerns.
Is the service well-led?
The service was well- led. There was a clear management structure in place. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.
Where investigations had been required, for example in response to accidents and incidents, the service had completed a detailed investigation. This included what actions had been taken to resolve the issues so that risks to people of future occurrences were minimised.