Cumberland

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Staff understood how to meet peoples specific needs and preferences because these had been assessed and recorded in up to date, person-centred care plans. Staff supported people to participate in meaningful recreational and leisure activities that reflected their social interests. The provider worked in close partnership with external health and social care professionals and bodies to plan and deliver people's packages of care and support. Staff understood how to help people stay healthy and well. Managers supported staff to continuously learn, develop and improve their working practices. Managers understood their quality and safety monitoring roles and responsibilities and learnt lessons when things went wrong. There was a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and this was only used when it was in the best interest of the person.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received care and support that was planned and delivered in line with their assessed needs and wishes. People's dependency needs were assessed before people were offered a place at the care home and these assessments were used to help develop people’s individualised care plans. People, their relatives and external health and social care representatives were all invited to participate in the pre-admission assessment process.

People’s relatives told us staff knew how to support them with known risks and that they were involved in planning the care they received. Relatives on one person who had recently moved into the service told us they were satisfied with the assessment process and the support they received from the provider and staff during the first few days and weeks of admission.

Staff that we spoke with told us they were give the time to read through people’s care and support plans which meant they would become familiar with their support needs and their individual preferences. They gave us examples about how they supported people in line with their wishes.

Peoples relatives told us staff provided their family members with all the care and support they needed. One relative said, “My [family member] has their own individualised care plan, which is discussed and shared with us, so staff know what they like and don’t like.”

Staff told us they followed guidance in care plans when supporting people. This included providing the appropriate level of support in line with guidance in relation to eating and drinking and moving and handling.

People received care and support from staff according to their individual assessed needs and wishes. People’s electronic care plans were up to date, personalised and contained detailed information about their unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Care plan reviews took place at regular intervals and as and when required if people’s needs and wishes changed. They included summaries of the support people had received since their last review and updates that needed to happen to ensure their care plan continued to reflect their current support needs and preferences. People, and those important to them, were routinely invited to take part in making decisions and planning of their care.

Managers and staff told us they regularly consulted with external bodies and professionals and welcomed their views, advice, and best practice ideas.

The provider worked in close partnership with various community-based health and social care professionals and agencies including, a local GP surgery, tissue viability nurses, numerous local authorities and palliative care, falls prevention, and positive behavioural support teams.

People using the service and their relatives told us they received joined up care from the provider working with the relevant health professionals. They told us the nurses were a visible presence in the home and they were able to see a GP or other health professional if needed. One relative told us, “Ver happy, GP access is fine. They visit regularly and do a round so we can always ask the staff here to ask the GP to review [family member].”

Staff using the service told us that any input that was required from external health professionals was assessed and requested via the nurses, GP or the registered manager. A GP visited the service regularly to review any people that had been put on their list. Appropriate referrals were made to other professionals if deemed appropriate by the GP, nurse and the registered manager.

People were supported to stay healthy and well. Care plans detailed their health care needs and conditions and the action staff needed to take to keep people fit and well. Records showed staff ensured people routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had regular check-ups with a range of external, community-based medical and health care professionals. This included GPs, nurses, occupational therapists, dentists and opticians.

People using the service told us they had access to relevant health professionals as required such as GP services if required.

The outcome of all the audits, monitoring checks and feedback the providers received from stakeholders were routinely analysed to identify issues, learn lessons and develop action plans to improve the service they provided people. These quality assurance systems had indicators that identified how the service was performing, areas requiring improvement and areas where the service was achieving or exceeding targets. Key performance indicators included care plan reviews, satisfaction surveys and occurrences, such as accidents and incidents.

People using the service and their relatives felt that all their care needs, including any clinical needs were being met by the provider.

It was clear from feedback we received from managers and senior staff they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure they maintained high-quality, person-centred and safe care for people. The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored by managers and nursing staff at both a provider and service level by conducting regular audits and checks, and obtaining stakeholder feedback. For example, managers and nursing staff met daily to discuss any changes to people’s needs and the packages of care they received and conduct walk-about tours of the premises to observe staffs working practices. This was also used as a spot audit and visual inspection of the premises.

People told us they consented to the care and support they received from staff at the service.

Managers and staff confirmed they had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and were aware of their duties and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS. Staff told us peoples care plans made it clear what decisions people could make for themselves.

People’s care records showed the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. For example, care plans clearly described what decisions people could make for themselves. There were processes in place where, if people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, the service would involve people’s relatives and professional representatives, to ensure decisions would be made in their best interests. We found a clear record of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) restrictions that had been authorised by the supervising body (the local authority) in people’s best interests.