Cumberland House is a large victorian building located in a residential area of Hastings, within walking distance of a large park and the town centre. There are large communal rooms on the ground floor including a two lounges and a dining room and there are gardens to the rear and sides of the building.

The home is registered for 18 people with mental health needs, but actually provides support for up to 14 people and there were 12 people living at the home during the inspection. Some people were independent and needed minimal assistance while others required some assistance with looking after themselves due to their mental health care needs.

This home is not required to have a registered manager as part of its conditions of registration. The provider is the registered person and they have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

At the last inspection on 5 and 7 October 2016 we carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection and found the provider was not meeting the regulation with regard to recruitment under the ‘safe’ question. The provider wrote to us and said they would meet the legal requirements by November 2016.

We undertook this focused inspection on the 2 March 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirement. This report only covers our findings in relation to that requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Cumberland House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We found the recruitment procedure had been reviewed; staff files included relevant checks and the information required to ensure that only suitable staff were employed to work at the home. People said there were enough staff to provide the support they wanted. One person told us, “They are very good, they know how much support we need.” Staff told us there were sufficient staff working in the home to provide the support people needed; they were not rushed and had time to support people to make choices and, “Do what they want to do”, such as go shopping.

People told us Cumberland House was their home; they were happy living there and their rooms had been personalised to suite their individual tastes. Risk assessments had been completed to ensure people were supported safely to be independent. These included environmental risk assessments for the use kettles, fridges and other electrical equipment in their rooms. People said they felt safe and received the support they needed. Staff had attended safeguarding training. They demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities with regard to supporting vulnerable people and the action they should take if they had any concerns.

The management of medicines had been reviewed since the last inspection and changes had been agreed with the new pharmacist to ensure the provider followed current guidance with regard to storing and giving out medicines safely. Staff said they had attended relevant training and records supported this.

The home was well maintained; refurbishment was on going and people had chosen the décor.

Cumberland House is registered to provide accommodation and care, without nursing, for up to 18 adults. People who live at the home require care and support due to their mental health needs. Cumberland House is a large Victorian House in a residential area of Hastings, within walking distance of the town centre.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 5 and 7 October 2016 and was unannounced. There were 14 people living at the home when we visited.

This home is not required to have a registered manager as part of its conditions of registration. The provider is the registered person and they have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

People were happy to be living at Cumberland House, which they described as their home, and they had positive, warm and friendly relationships with the staff. Most of the staff had worked at the home for a number of years and several of them talked about it as a family. They enjoyed working at the home and were well supported by the owner/manager and deputy manager.

Staff had undergone training and knew how to recognise and report any incidents of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed, which meant that people were kept as safe as possible. Medicines were managed well so that people received their prescribed medicines safely.

There were sufficient staff on duty to make sure that each person had the support they needed to do whatever they wanted to do. Staff had undertaken training in a range of topics relevant to their role so that they were equipped to do their job well. Staff had not always been recruited in a way that made sure that only staff suitable to work in a care home were employed.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had been assessed. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the MCA and DoLS. Appropriate applications had been made to the relevant authorities to ensure that people’s rights were protected if they lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and staff involved a range of healthcare professionals to make sure that people were supported to maintain good health and well-being. People were given sufficient amounts of food and drink and people’s dietary needs were met.

Staff showed that they cared about the people they were supporting. Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion and made sure that people’s privacy and dignity were upheld at all times. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible. People’s personal information was kept securely so that their confidentiality and privacy were maintained.

People had been fully involved in planning their care and support. Care plans gave staff detailed, individualised information about the ways in which each person wanted their care and support delivered and about their hopes, aspirations and goals. People received consistent, personalised care and support from the staff team.

Each person was encouraged to live their life in the way they wanted to and do what they wanted to do each day. Staff were creative in organising activities and outings based on their deep understanding of what each person wanted to do. People chose whether or not to join in. People were sure that their concerns would be listened to and addressed quickly.

The managers were very approachable and supportive. People and staff were given a range of opportunities to share their views about the service delivered by the staff and put forward ideas for improvements. Audits of a number of aspects of the way the home was managed were carried out to make sure that a good quality care and support service was provided. Records were maintained as required.

There were thirteen people living at the home on the day of our inspection. We spoke with four people who lived at the home and with four staff.

We found that consent was sought prior to care and that people were included in the development of their care plans. One person told us, “I like living here the staff are very friendly and will always chat.”

We found that the meals were varied and nutritionally balanced. One person told us, “The food is very good, always tasty.”

We found that the home was clean and tidy. Although up-to-date infection control training had not been undertaken by most staff. Staff we spoke to were knowledgeable on infection control practice. Staff we spoke to enjoyed working at the home one told us, “It is a great place to work and I enjoy working with the people who live here.” We found that the staff were knowledgeable about the people they were caring for.

The systems the home had in place to monitor the quality of service that people received had improved since our last inspection in January 2013. There was evidence that people who lived at the home and visitors had been consulted and actions taken on their views.

People using the service told us that the provider had visited them prior to moving in and talked about what support they would need. They said there were activities going on in the home, but they were free to do as they wished. People were satisfied with the care and support received and felt the staff were on hand to help if and when they were needed.

People told us they could make decisions about what to do each day and were treated with kindness and respect. They were happy with the care and support they received and felt safe living at Cumberland House. People told us staff were kind and caring. People felt confident any concerns would be sorted out and they could have a say in what happened in the home.

The people we spoke with who lived at Cumberland House told us they liked living there, and had no complaints. We heard about a range of activities that people enjoyed and found there was an emphasis on independence.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living there, and staff were able to tell us about the signs of potential abuse and how to raise concerns. Staff had received recent training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, however most staff had not had recent training in safeguarding.

Staff received supervision and told us they felt they benefitted from informal support from management. We saw staff were familiar with the individual needs of the people they looked after.

We saw that one audit had been carried out but there was no record of how the result had fed back into improving the service. Staff had not been updated on the audit result. We saw that accidents and incidents had been recorded, however again, we saw no evidence that learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were implemented.