CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Knowle House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures. They were assured that infection risks were being managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Knowle House Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control and visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. It followed concerns about visiting and focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Staff followed infection-control procedures, used protective equipment correctly and had training and competency checks. The home also had COVID-19 testing arrangements and risk assessments for safety.
Visiting was supported through screening, temperature checks, protective equipment and a booking system. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, but the service was not rated because only part of the Safe question was inspected.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, and cleaning tasks were consistently completed.
“The service was clean and tidy. Cleaning tasks were consistently completed.” from the report
Infection-control practice
Staff followed infection-control procedures, used protective equipment safely and had relevant training and competency checks.
“Staff had regular competency checks for effective handwashing and the donning and doffing of PPE.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home used screening, temperature checks, protective equipment and a booking system to support visits while managing infection risks.
“Risk assessments regarding visiting the home had been completed in order to facilitate visits taking in to consideration the geography of the building.” from the report
COVID-19 planning
The registered manager used risk assessments and worked with the local authority and Public Health England to manage COVID-19.
“The registered manager ensured there was an appropriate COVID-19 testing regime in-line with current government guidelines.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, including any booking, screening or visitor number limits?
- 02How are staffing pressures currently affecting the home, and what measures are in place to manage them?
- 03How often are staff checked for safe handwashing and for putting on and removing protective equipment?
- 04What COVID-19 testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 05When will the next comprehensive inspection assess the other four key questions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the Safe question was not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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, August 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but the home’s leadership and quality checks required improvement.
This was the home’s first inspection. Inspectors visited without notice, looked around the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management documents.
People were generally safe and received good care. Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful, care was personalised, medicines were usually managed safely, and people had choices about food, daily routines, activities and where they spent their time.
The main weakness was oversight by the management team. Some pressure-relieving mattresses were set incorrectly, some guidance for as-required medicines was missing, and one recent fall had not been recorded. The manager acted immediately to put these matters right, and inspectors said the risks had been reduced.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, meaning management and quality checks were not yet consistently strong enough.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff responded promptly and supported people in a calm and caring way.
“People received kind and compassionate support from staff. People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personal choice
People were involved in decisions about daily routines, meals, personal care and activities. Staff supported independence and respected people's preferences.
“People were supported to exercise choice and control in their day to day lives and were empowered to make their own choices” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff monitored people's weight and fluid intake, responded to concerns and involved health professionals when needed. People were offered choices of food and drink.
“People's nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People had a choice of meals provided and staff knew people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join in activities such as crafts, exercise, games, baking and trips out. Families could visit freely and were supported to stay involved.
“Each day included a selection of activities that people could join in with.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
Inspectors found appropriate recruitment checks, training, induction and supervision. Staff said they felt supported in their roles.
“There was a robust recruitment procedure.” from the report
Pressure-relieving equipment
seriousSome air mattresses were set incorrectly, and staff could not clearly explain who checked them or what settings were needed. The mattresses were reset and twice-daily checks were introduced during the inspection.
“However, we found some air mattresses were set incorrectly.” from the report
As-required medicines
seriousProtocols for some as-required medicines were not available and there was no record showing whether the medicines had worked. Guidance was created during or immediately after the inspection.
“Protocols for 'as required' (PRN) medicines such as pain relief medicines were not readily available as they were waiting for the GP to sign them.” from the report
Recording accidents
needs fixingOne unwitnessed fall from two days before the inspection had not been recorded. The relevant records were updated immediately.
“An unwitnessed fall two days previously had not been recorded.” from the report
Complaints not fully resolved
needs fixingThere had been a high number of complaints in the previous year. They were answered within the home's timescales, but most came from one complainant and had not all been resolved to that person's satisfaction.
“However, the majority were from one complainant and these had not all been resolved to their satisfaction.” from the report
Management registration
needs fixingThe home had a manager, but that manager was not yet registered with CQC. An application had been submitted and was being processed.
“The service did not have a manager currently registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01How are pressure-relieving mattresses set for each person, and who checks them twice a day?
- 02What written protocols are now in place for each person's as-required medicine, and how do you record whether it has worked?
- 03How are falls and other accidents recorded, reviewed and followed up?
- 04What is the current position on the manager's CQC registration?
- 05What happened with the complaints referred to in the report, and how do you make sure concerns are fully resolved?
This was the first planned inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 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 Knowle House Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 July 2018.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.