Cumberland Lodge

Updated 30 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection:

This unannounced inspection took place on 21 March 2019. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an assistant inspector.

Registered manager:

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

What we did:

As part of the inspection, we reviewed a range of information about the service. This included safeguarding alerts and statutory notifications, which related to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. Safeguarding alerts are information we receive when there are concerns about a person's safety.

The registered manager had submitted a Provider Information Return (PIR). This return provides information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We focused on speaking with people who lived at the service and observing how people were cared for.

We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and three care staff. We reviewed three care records. We also looked at a range of documents relating to the management of the service, including quality audits.

We had contact with four health and social care professionals who were involved in the care of the people at the service.

Updated 30 April 2019

About the service:

Cumberland Lodge offers care and support for up to 14 people who are living with mental health issues. Nursing care is not offered at Cumberland Lodge. At the time of our inspection, there were 14 people living at the service, including two people who were in hospital.

People’s experience of using this service:

People benefitted from a service which was well-run and where the management team had a shared vision which focused on people’s needs. The registered manager and their deputy worked effectively together, complementing each other well. The provider demonstrated a commitment to people’s wellbeing and to ensuring people were treated with dignity and lived in a comfortable environment. We received consistently positive feedback from people, staff and external professionals about the service.

There were detailed checks on the quality of the service which took into account people’s views about the support they received. These measures reduced the risk of harm to people, staff and the public. The registered manager used learning from mistakes, quality checks and best practice to make the service better.

Staff supported people to remain safe, whilst respecting their right to independence. They knew what to do if they were concerned about a person’s safety. Risk was well assessed and managed at the service.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment records were poorly ordered; however, the registered manager was able to demonstrate that staff had been recruited safely.

There were effective systems in place to ensure people received the necessary support with their medicine. The registered manager and their deputy continually reviewed and improved these systems.

Staff were skilled at providing care for people and received the required training to develop their knowledge and expertise. Detailed care plans provided practical advice about how to meet people’s needs. Staff were well supported and worked effectively as a team.

Staff worked well with people and external professionals to promote health and wellbeing at the service. People made choices about what they ate and drank, and received the necessary support to manage any specialist nutritional needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The atmosphere at the service was calm and people felt at ease with the staff who supported them. Staff were compassionate and considerate about people’s individual circumstances. There was a positive focus throughout the service on the importance of maintaining and promoting independence.

Support was tailored around people’s individual needs. Staff regularly reviewed and adapted support when these needs changed. Staff supported people to develop and pursue their interests. The registered manager had increased staffing so that people could receive the necessary support to visit the local community.

People could make complaints if they were unhappy with the support they received. The registered manager and provider ensured there were other opportunities to give feedback where people did not feel able to complain.

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report was published on 24 June 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service to ensure people receive care which meets their needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.