CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Knightswood Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor screening, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with some resources suggested to develop the home's approach.
This was an announced thematic review during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures in the home, rather than carrying out a full inspection of all areas of care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks. They also found several measures to reduce infection risks, including visitor checks, a separate visitors' room and reduced seating in communal areas.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a broad quality rating for the home, and it should not be read as a full assessment of care.
Visitor checks
Visitors completed COVID-19 questionnaires and risk assessments, and had their temperatures checked.
“COVID-19 questionnaire/risk assessments and temperature checks were completed for any visitors, this helped the home to manage risk.” from the report
Separate visitors' room
The home had a dedicated room with a separate entrance, a screen and distanced seating to reduce contact inside the home.
“This room had a separate entrance which meant that visitors did not need to go through the home, which reduced risk.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely and could access testing for residents and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Social distancing measures
Seating in communal areas had been reduced to encourage people to keep apart.
“Seating in communal areas had been reduced in an effort to encourage social distancing.” from the report
Delivery precautions
Mail and parcels were kept at the entrance before being opened, as a measure intended to reduce infection risk from deliveries.
“Mail/parcels were left in the entrance for three days before opening.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain exactly what needed developing.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control resources did inspectors suggest you use, and what changes have you made since the review?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, assessed and checked for symptoms or temperature?
- 03How do you make sure protective equipment is used safely and that residents and staff can access testing?
- 04How do you safely admit new residents and manage any infection outbreak?
- 05Is your infection prevention and control policy still up to date, and how is it put into practice?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, and it was not a full inspection or a broad quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 2020 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor areas for improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 March 2020. One inspector spoke with five people living at the home, two relatives and staff. They observed care, checked records, medicines, staffing, recruitment, food and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and care was based on people's needs and choices.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Activities were provided daily, although a new activity co-ordinator was still being recruited. One relative also felt some redecoration would help.
The Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 30 March 2017. It means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of this inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
People said staff responded promptly. Inspectors found safe recruitment, suitable staffing arrangements and correctly completed medicines records.
“Medicines were managed safely. Records we looked at were completed correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with respect and kindness. People's privacy, dignity and independence were supported.
“People were treated with respect, and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Care plans included health and social care needs and were reviewed regularly.
“Staff were aware of their likes and preferences including activities and hobbies.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked with GPs, district nurses and other healthcare services. People were supported to attend appointments when needed.
“The registered manager continued to work effectively with healthcare professionals to ensure people's healthcare needs were met.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found clear roles, good staff morale and regular monitoring through audits and meetings. The management team acted on audit findings.
“The registered manager continued to maintain an open and transparent culture which contributed to staff morale being high” from the report
Activity co-ordinator post not yet filled
minorActivities were being provided, but the home was still recruiting for a new activity co-ordinator. Ask how activities will be planned and maintained.
“A new 'activity co-ordinator' post had been created and the service were in the process of employing someone.” from the report
Some redecoration needed
minorA relative said the home was clean and homely but that some redecoration would help. Inspectors did not rate this as a failure.
“It is clean and very homely, a bit of redecoration would help but they do keep on top of the building.” from the report
- 01Who is currently organising activities while the activity co-ordinator post is being filled?
- 02Which parts of the home need redecoration, and is there a planned timetable for this work?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan continues to reflect their choices, preferences and communication needs?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed about healthcare appointments and changes in health?
- 05How are medicines checked and monitored for each person?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2020 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 Knightswood Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bolton
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.