You are here

Cumberland Complex Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 29 April 2020

About the service

Cumberland complex is a supported living service that can support up to 38 people. At the time of our inspection it was only providing a regulated activity to three people using the service.

People lived in a building that was originally a hotel. The building had been adapted for supported living services and was registered with the local authority as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO). The building was in the seaside town of Torquay close to local shops and the sea. People had their own rooms and there were shared dining and communal lounge facilities. There was an office on site with staff available for support 24/7 if needed.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

During this inspection we found two breaches of regulation around the safe management of medicines, risk documents being kept up to date and a lack of effective quality assurance and governance systems. Nobody had been harmed because of these concerns but they were placed at risk of potential harm through a lack of quality checking and records that were not always up to date.

We signposted the registered manager and provider to our website and recent best practise guidance on how to support people with personal care as we felt they needed a refresher in this area. Most people using the service were not having support with a regulated activity, the concerns we found applied to a small minority of people having support with personal care and medicines.

People told us they were happy living in the service and felt safe. We heard how the service had supported people to change their lives and feel more confident and have greater self-worth.

Care plans were person focussed, written from the perspective of people using the service, and reviewed regularly by people. People said staff were caring and patient and listened to them.

Staff felt supported through supervision, appraisal and regular meetings. Staff training was up to date and staff had completed training relevant to the support needs of people using the service.

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

People were supported to live healthier lifestyles and access health services where required. People were supported to improve and maintain their wellbeing, so they no longer needed the support of some community services.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people. Staff were experienced and knew people well. New staff were recruited using a thorough recruitment system.

People were safeguarded from abuse by staff who knew how to identify and report concerns.

Where needed people were supported to link in with activities or events in the local community and make new friends.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 05 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to medicines, risk assessing and governance. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.