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?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments involved people, staffing levels met people's needs and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's health needs, strengths and aspirations. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food and drink, and mental capacity and liberty safeguards were handled appropriately.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff listened to people's wishes, supported independence and helped people take part in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and helped people develop everyday skills, maintain relationships and follow their interests. Communication passports and easy-read information helped people understand and express themselves.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was described as open, supportive and focused on improvement. People and staff were involved in developing the service, and audits were used to identify and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some repairs still needed.
Inspectors visited on 7 June 2022. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home supported autistic people, people with learning disabilities and people with mental health conditions. Inspectors found that people had choices, were supported to be independent and received care that reflected their needs, communication styles and goals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found people were safe, supported by skilled staff, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care.
The home had a culture of learning and improvement. However, some parts of the building looked tired, with peeling paint and a cracked window. The manager showed inspectors plans for repairs and redecoration.
Choice and independence
People chose how to spend their time, personalised their rooms and flats, and were supported to develop everyday skills and make decisions about their lives.
“People were supported to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and supported privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Clear communication
Staff understood how each person communicated. Communication passports, easy-read documents and pictures helped people understand information and share their views.
“People had individual communication passports that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication, including the approach to use for different situations.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff had training in areas relevant to the people they supported. They also received regular supervision and could raise concerns with managers.
“People were supported by staff who had received relevant and good quality training in evidence-based practice.” from the report
Strong management and learning
The home used audits, incident reviews and complaints to improve care. People and staff were encouraged to suggest changes.
“Quality systems were robust and consisted of numerous quality audits and checks, including infection control, care records, environmental, complaints and safeguarding.” from the report
Some repairs were still needed
minorInspectors found that the home looked a little tired. Paint was peeling, one window was cracked and a hole in a wall had recently been filled. Plans for repairs and redecoration were in place.
“The home was a little tired and there were areas where paint was pealing.” from the report
Limited professional feedback
minorThe provider sent questionnaires to professionals, but these were not often returned. The provider was considering other ways to gather this feedback.
“Although, these were not often completed and returned. The provider is considering new and innovative ways to gather feedback from professionals.” from the report
- 01Have the peeling paint, cracked window and wall repairs now been completed, and what further refurbishment is planned?
- 02What changes were made after the medication error mentioned in the report, and how do you check that medicines are given correctly?
- 03How will you gather regular feedback from health and social care professionals when questionnaires are not returned?
- 04How will my relative be involved in setting and reviewing their monthly goals and wellbeing plans?
- 05How will you support my relative to make choices about communication, independence, activities and relationships?
This inspection assessed the care home and personal care in the supported living flats, but no one was receiving domiciliary care and CQC did not regulate the supported living premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2022 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, December 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support that promoted independence.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 18 November 2019. They spoke with three people, nine staff members and two visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home supported adults with autism, learning disabilities and mental health conditions. Inspectors found people were safe, staff were trained, medicines were managed safely and people's health needs were supported. Staff were kind, respected people's choices and promoted independence.
People helped plan their care, activities and weekly diaries. The home supported communication, family relationships and complaints. Management systems checked the quality of care and acted when issues were found.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was also Good, published on 24 May 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, including one-to-one support where needed. Medicines were stored and administered safely, with clear guidance for as-required medicines.
“People were supported by a sufficient number of safely recruited staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make their own decisions.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in planning their care and weekly activities. Information was adapted, including through pictorial records where needed.
“People were involved in planning personalised care and were supported to design their own care diaries.” from the report
Focus on independence
The home supported people to learn daily living skills, make choices and move towards greater independence in supported living.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Quality checks
Management used several types of audit and acted when problems were identified. Feedback from people, staff and professionals was also used to make changes.
“Effective audit systems were in place to check the quality of the service and action was taken when audits identified any issues.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, including any risk of self-harm or harm to others?
- 02What training would staff have for my relative's particular needs, and how would you arrange further training if needed?
- 03How would my relative be involved in planning their care, weekly activities and goals?
- 04How would you support my relative to develop independent living skills and, where appropriate, move towards supported living?
- 05How would my relative or family raise a complaint, and how would we be kept informed of the response?
This was a planned inspection covering the care home and personal care and support in the supported living flats; no people were receiving the separately registered domiciliary care service, and CQC did not inspect the supported living premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 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
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 October 2016.
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 Wolverhampton
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.