CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brendoncare Knightwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risk assessments were detailed and medicines were managed safely. Inspectors recommended that recruitment policies should always be followed because some employment gaps and medical fitness checks were not fully explained or reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, people's dietary needs were assessed and healthcare referrals were made promptly. People were supported to make choices and give consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and professionals described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors observed dignity, respect, privacy and encouragement for people to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated as people's needs changed. People could take part in activities, keep in touch with relatives and discuss their end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, clear staff responsibilities and positive feedback about management. The home used people's individual feedback to make changes to activities, routines and menus.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Brendoncare Knightwood rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but recruitment checks were not always followed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 and 11 January 2023. One inspector spoke with eight people, 16 staff and three health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed risk assessments, personalised care plans and good access to healthcare.
There were some areas to improve. Recruitment procedures were not always followed because employment gaps and medical fitness checks were not always recorded or reviewed. The provider was also clarifying the move to an electronic system for environmental safety monitoring. These issues did not change the overall Good rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, and people said staff were available when needed. Long-serving staff knew people well and provided continuity.
“There were enough staff on duty. People told us staff were available to them when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and professionals described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed dignity, respect and support for independence.
“Staff treated people with kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, abilities and preferences. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their changing needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People gave very positive feedback about meals, with choices and alternatives available. Healthcare referrals were described as timely and appropriate.
“Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. People were given a choice of meals and there were alternatives, lighter meals and higher calorie meals available for them.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingThe recruitment process was not always followed. Some employment gaps were unexplained and staff medical fitness was not always reviewed. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this.
“Gaps in employment were not always explained and staff medical fitness were not always reviewed.” from the report
Safety monitoring system
minorEnvironmental safety checks were in place, but the provider was still clarifying the transfer to an electronic monitoring system.
“Environmental safety checks were in place and the provider was in the process of ensuring clarity with transfer to an electronic monitoring system.” from the report
Occasional medicines guidance
minorGuidance for medicines taken only occasionally was in place, but the manager was still developing it to make it more personal to each person.
“The manager told us they were developing the guidance to be more personalised.” from the report
Complaints policy update
minorThe complaints policy was being updated to include guidance about reporting complaints outside the organisation. Existing concerns and minor complaints had been dealt with satisfactorily.
“The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place, which was in the process of being updated to include guidance of external complaint reporting.” from the report
- 01Have all employment gaps and staff medical fitness checks now been reviewed and recorded?
- 02How are environmental safety checks monitored on the electronic system now?
- 03How is occasional medicines guidance personalised for each person?
- 04How can residents and relatives raise a complaint, including with an organisation outside the home?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support are currently available, and how are people's preferences recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the previous overall rating was Good in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Brendoncare Knightwood was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor record-keeping concerns.
Inspectors visited on 7 August 2017 without warning and returned on 11 August 2017 to finish the inspection. They spoke with people living there, a relative, staff, volunteers, managers and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good food and effective work with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to follow their own routines and interests.
The home had improved since the February 2016 inspection, when it required improvement and breached three regulations. Staffing, prescribed cream use and activities had improved. Inspectors found that most cream applications were now correct, although a few records did not accurately show what staff had done.
Staffing and safety
People told inspectors there were enough staff and that call bells were answered quickly. Recruitment checks and risk assessments were also in place.
“People were safely cared for by a sufficient number of suitably recruited staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported them to do as much as possible for themselves. Privacy and dignity were protected.
“We observed staff having friendly conversations-with people, clearly knowing them and their interests well.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home had employed an activity coordinator and developed activities around people's interests. Inspectors found this had improved since the previous inspection.
“The service had employed an activity coordinator who had, in consultation with people developed a range of activities to suit people's preferences and interests.” from the report
Leadership and quality checks
The manager was approachable and staff had clear roles. Regular audits identified shortfalls and led to action.
“There were thorough quality assurance audits in place which were completed regularly.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingPeople received their prescribed topical creams, but a few records did not accurately show that this had happened. Managers said they would improve the records immediately.
“At this inspection we found people had their topical creams applied as prescribed although a few records did not always reflect this.” from the report
- 01How do you check that every topical cream application is recorded accurately?
- 02How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs or dependency levels change?
- 03Which activities are available for my relative's particular interests and preferences?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan?
- 05How can we raise a concern, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an inspection of all five areas of the service: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, with a further visit to complete the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Brendoncare Knightwood
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.