CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Knoll House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found planned admissions, effective PPE use, testing arrangements and measures to prevent or manage outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures kept people safe.
This was an announced inspection on 10 November 2020. It was part of a coronavirus-related review of infection prevention and control in care homes.
Inspectors found good practice. New residents had planned admissions and completed 14 days of isolation. Staff had PPE areas, followed guidance and maintained social distancing.
The home had controlled garden visits and updated infection control procedures. Inspectors were assured about testing, PPE, social distancing, cleanliness and managing possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so it does not give an overall quality rating.
Planned admissions
Admissions were carefully planned, and each new resident completed a 14-day isolation period.
“People were admitted safely to the service. Each admission was carefully planned, and a 14-day period of isolation was completed by each person.” from the report
PPE and distancing
Staff had designated areas for putting on and removing PPE. Inspectors saw staff following PPE guidance and keeping their distance.
“Staff were seen to be maintaining social distance and adhering to the PPE guidance and protective measures in place.” from the report
Controlled visits
Garden visits were arranged by appointment, with limits and timings intended to reduce infection transmission.
“Visits were limited and were by appointment only, with times allocated to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.” from the report
Infection control systems
The home had procedures and guidance in place, including arrangements for testing, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
- 02Which areas of care have been assessed since this infection control inspection?
- 03What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 04How are visits currently organised, and is there an indoor visiting space?
- 05How does the home arrange testing and respond if an infection outbreak occurs?
This was a focused thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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, April 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found a safety risk with first-floor windows and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 March 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, service records, training, complaints and safeguarding information. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and the provider.
The home was caring, effective, responsive and well-led. People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were trained and supported, medicines were managed safely, and people had access to activities, food choices and healthcare.
The main concern was that first-floor windows could be opened wide enough for someone to climb out. Suitable restrictors were arranged after inspectors raised this. Some carpets and chairs were also stained and looked tired. The overall rating remained Good, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were respectful and involved them in decisions. Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions.
“Our observations were of people and staff, including management, interacting in a warm and friendly manner.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received regular training, a thorough induction and supervision. They said the training helped them do their jobs.
“A regular programme of training was in place, including training in supporting people who may have dementia.” from the report
Safe medicines arrangements
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff. Records were accurate and regularly checked.
“Medicines were administered by staff that were trained to do so. Medicines were stored securely, and medication administration records in use were accurate” from the report
More activities
The home had employed an activity coordinator and kept a programme of activities. This addressed the previous concern about limited activities.
“At this inspection, we found the provider had taken steps to improve in this area.” from the report
Open management
Staff felt supported and believed concerns would be dealt with promptly. Audits were used to identify and address problems.
“Audits were carried out on areas such as medicines management, care and support records, health and safety and the environment.” from the report
First-floor window risk
seriousWindow restrictors were not effective. The windows could be opened wide enough for a person to climb out, creating a potential risk of harm.
“The windows did have a mechanism which initially stopped them from opening wide, but this was easily disabled.” from the report
Tired furnishings
minorThe home was mostly clean, but some communal carpets and chairs were stained and needed replacement or refurbishment.
“Areas of carpet in communal spaces, as well as several chairs people were using, were stained.” from the report
- 01Have suitable restrictors now been fitted to all first-floor windows, including bedroom windows?
- 02How are window restrictors checked to make sure they cannot be easily disabled?
- 03When will the stained carpets and chairs be replaced or refurbished?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you record whether residents enjoy them?
- 05How will you make sure a new resident's cultural, religious, dietary and healthcare needs are included in their care plan?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 2019 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 Knoll House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Central Bedfordshire
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.