CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 131 Kneller Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, regularly reviewed risk plans, safe medicines practices and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training and worked with healthcare professionals to support people's health, nutrition and hydration.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices and to maintain or develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records described people's needs, preferences and routines. Staff supported communication, activities, community access and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was managed openly and used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Staff felt supported and understood their roles.
What inspectors found, September 2022
United Response - 131 Kneller Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 July 2022. One inspector spoke with a person using the service, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, staff records and other documents, and observed care.
The home was supporting six people with personal care. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs, supported their independence and helped them take part in activities and community life.
The home had enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and suitable infection control measures. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed, healthcare needs were followed up, and quality checks were used to identify and address problems.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection rating was also Good, published on 4 October 2018.
Enough regular staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Regular staff had worked at the home for many years and knew people well.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had caring relationships with staff. Their privacy, dignity, equality and choices were respected.
“People had developed positive and meaningful caring relationships with staff who provided their care.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff helped people make choices, develop skills and do tasks for themselves where possible.
“People were supported to live independent lives as far as practicable.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, attend college, access the community and maintain relationships.
“People received the support they required to take part in activities of their choosing which enabled them to minimise the risk of social isolation and live fulfilling lives.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider and manager used checks covering medicines, care planning, records, training and staff support to monitor and improve the service.
“Quality assurances checks were undertaken to assess and monitor the care provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs and preferred way of making choices?
- 02How would you support my relative to remain independent and develop or maintain daily living skills?
- 03What activities and community access could be arranged around my relative's interests and routines?
- 04How would you manage my relative's medicines, nutrition, hydration and any changing health risks?
- 05How would relatives be involved in care reviews and kept informed if my relative became unwell?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control measures; each rating remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 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, October 2017
United Response - 131 Kneller Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 August 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff, a team manager and an advocate, and checked care records, medicines, training, policies and quality checks.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were treated with respect and supported to communicate, make choices and take part in activities at home and in the community. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and kept up to date.
Staff were described as skilled, friendly and knowledgeable. The home was clean, maintained and recently redecorated. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable staffing, good support with health and nutrition, and a clear system for checking the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the home had also been rated Good in every area at the inspection in May 2015.
Detailed care records
Care plans and risk assessments were individualised, regularly reviewed and gave staff clear information about people's needs and wishes.
“The home had records that were comprehensive and kept up to date.” from the report
Respectful communication
Staff understood how people communicated through actions, gestures and body language. They gave people time and used communication methods suited to them.
“Staff spent time engaging with people, talking in a supportive and reassuring way and projecting positive body language that people returned.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People had individual and group activities at home and in the community, including trips, hobbies and opportunities to develop life skills.
“People had their own weekly individual activity plans that recorded the activities they would be doing.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The home used regular audits and reviews covering areas such as care plans, risks, medicines, infection control, equipment and the building.
“There was a robust quality assurance system that contained performance indicators, identified how the home was performing, any areas that required improvement and areas where the home was performing well.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would staff learn and respond to my relative's individual ways of communicating?
- 02How would my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their needs or interests changed?
- 03What activities would be available for my relative at home and in the community?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions about care and health needs?
- 05How are medicines checked and how would you tell us about any changes or concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 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 131 Kneller Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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 Richmond upon Thames
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 £1,270 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.