CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Knowle Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and infection prevention systems were in place. Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, nutrition and healthcare were managed effectively. The home had improved its recording of decision-specific capacity assessments and best-interest decisions since the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management responsibilities, strong auditing and good involvement of people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, although staff were described as busy.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 December 2023. Inspectors reviewed records, staff training and recruitment, and how the home was managed. They spoke with 7 people, 1 relative and 8 staff.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, there were enough staff, infection control was good, and staff had suitable training and support.
People enjoyed the food, had choice, and were involved in their care. The home worked with health and social care professionals, and its audits and complaint systems were being used well.
The overall rating remained Good. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Safety systems
The home assessed and reviewed risks, managed medicines safely and had systems to reduce infection risks.
“People were safe because systems were in place to make sure risks to people were assessed and actions taken to mitigate the risk.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People had plenty of choice, and staff monitored food and fluid intake. The cook understood individual dietary needs.
“People's diet and fluid intake was monitored and recorded.” from the report
Involvement and communication
People and staff were able to give their views through meetings, questionnaires and other feedback. The home shared responses through newsletters and 'You said, we did' information.
“People felt involved and were able to give their views about the service through satisfaction questionnaires and regular meetings.” from the report
Management and improvement
The management team used audits to identify issues and develop action plans. Complaints were dealt with promptly.
“A very robust system of auditing identified any potential issues within the service and action plans were developed to make sure they were addressed.” from the report
Staff could be busy
minorPeople and staff said there were enough staff, but people also said staff were quite busy. Ask how call bells and other requests are prioritised at busy times.
“People we spoke with confirmed this but said staff were very busy.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staff are available promptly when the home is busy?
- 02What are the current ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
- 03How do you keep decision-specific capacity assessments and best-interest decisions up to date?
- 04How are people's food, drink and weight monitored if staff identify a concern?
- 05How do people and relatives see what the home has done in response to their feedback or complaints?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2024 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 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but the service Requires Improvement in effective care because some mental capacity decisions were not fully recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 November 2017. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines, staffing, the building and care provided. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, managers and a community professional.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection in July 2016, including better risk assessments, medicines management and quality checks.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some mental capacity assessments did not clearly record the specific decision being considered. Best interest discussions with representatives were not always recorded either. The provider took some action during and after the inspection, and inspectors made a recommendation about improving these records.
Risk management
People had individual risk assessments covering issues such as malnutrition, pressure ulcers and moving and handling. These were updated regularly and available to staff.
“Risk assessments were individual to people's needs and minimised risk whilst promoting people's independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships and staff responding thoughtfully to people's emotional and communication needs. People's privacy, dignity and everyday choices were respected.
“We observed staff speak to people gently or with appropriate humour and they were kind and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, interests and support needs. People and their representatives were involved in reviews, and activities were tailored to individual interests.
“We found care plans were person-centred and explained how people liked to be supported.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its audits, care records and oversight since the previous inspection. Staff and managers understood their roles and used meetings and feedback to make changes.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome assessments did not clearly explain the particular decision being made. Best interest discussions with people's representatives were not always recorded, so the decision-making process was not always evidenced.
“Some mental capacity assessments required more detail regarding the specific decision to be made in line with the MCA and guidance.” from the report
Best interest discussions
needs fixingFor some people, the records did not show that representatives had been consulted when decisions were made on their behalf. The provider said it would complete further assessments and record these discussions.
“We found where mental capacity assessments had been completed for some people best interest discussions had not always been recorded to show the person's representative had been consulted.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the specific decision being considered in each mental capacity assessment?
- 02How do you evidence that representatives are consulted during best interest decisions?
- 03What changes were made after the inspection recommendation about mental capacity records?
- 04How do you check that care plans and risk assessments remain up to date when someone's needs change?
- 05How are activities matched to each person's interests and preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality and safety of the service, with improvements checked against the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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 Knowle Court
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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 Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.