The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Knowl

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

52 Stert Street, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3JU (01235) 521850

Provided and run by:
2 Care

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

21 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 21 and 22 December 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

The Knowl is registered to provide accommodation for up to 15 adults with mental health needs who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns and the service worked with the local authority if there were any concerns. People received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff assessed risks associated with people's care and took action to reduce risks.

People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff who knew how to support them. Staff were supported through one to one meetings with their managers and training to enable them to provide a high degree of care.

Staff understood the needs of people, particularly those living with mental health needs, and provided care with kindness and compassion. People spoke positively about the service and the care they received. Staff took time to talk with people and provide activities.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The service had robust recruitment procedures in place which ensured staff were suitable for their role. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were of good character.

The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) which governs decision-making on behalf of adults who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed appropriately.

People said they were able to raise issues and concerns. They told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken.

The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided in the home. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care. People’s opinions were sought and their preference respected and acted upon.

People were supported to maintain good health. Referrals to healthcare professionals were timely and appropriate and any guidance was followed. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about the service.

All staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff told us they were approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service. People knew the registered manager and spoke to them openly and with confidence.

The service maintained links with the local community through police community support officer’s local groups and businesses. People had access to volunteering opportunities that were supported by the service.

2 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with one person that lived at the home and four staff members. We looked at five care records. We walked around the home and saw it was clean and tidy. The environment was welcoming and homely.

When we previously inspected the home on 29 November 2012 we judged that people were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. We found that the home had made significant improvements since our last visit to ensure that the environment was made more pleasant for people and the risk of infection was reduced. We found that the provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure that the home was kept clean whilst supporting people to develop their independent living skills. We saw that comprehensive guidance relating to infection control was available to staff. Staff we spoke with were familiar with this guidance and how to implement it in their role.

We found that each person living in the home had undergone an assessment to determine the support they required to manage their personal hygiene, any risk of infection and the cleanliness of their room and clothing. We saw that care plans provided staff with detailed instruction how to support people to ensure these risk were managed appropriately. One person told us 'I like to stay clean but it isn't always easy to remember what to do when I am not well. This list helps me to see what I need to do ' I tick each box when I am finished. It is good to see that I have done things'.

We found that the home had reviewed all fire procedures including the fire emergency plan, evacuation procedure and fire testing arrangements following a fire in an adjoining annex. We saw that relevant fire safety checks were completed weekly. The premises were well maintained and we found that risks to people's safety had been identified and managed.

28 March 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During this inspection we spoke with three people using the service and with five members of staff.

People told us that they had a very positive experience. They received care from compassionate recovery workers who were described as 'good', 'well trained' and 'approachable'.

We found that risks to people's health, welfare and safety were adequately managed. People had recovery plans and were supported to meet their agreed goals. People told us they were supported to access the community and develop skills to enable them to live more independently in the future. We found the level of support was flexible and adjusted as people's mental health fluctuated.

Recovery plans clearly showed that people were involved in making decisions about their daily lives.

We found staff had received the training to support them to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Mental health related training was available to all staff. Staff had received regular supervision and appraisals.

The home had made significant improvements to the quality of their records since our previous inspection. Recovery plans were written in detail to ensure staff knew how to support people appropriately. For example it was clear how people at risk of neglect or not taking their medication were to be supported to reduce these risks of occurring.

The home had systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service as well as identify and manage risks appropriately.

29 November 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

The people who use the service did not comment on the cleanliness of the home. The manager and staff we spoke to said people were encouraged and supported to take responsibility, as far as they were able, for cleaning their bedrooms and the communal areas.

What we found about the standards we reviewed and how well 2care - The Knowl was meeting them.

Outcome 08: People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection

We found that infection control guidance was not up to date with national guidance. Adequate systems to monitor cleanliness were not in place. We found that people were not protected from the risk of infection because they were not cared for in a clean and hygienic environment. The provider was not meeting this standard. We have judged that this has a moderate impact on people using the service and action was needed for this essential standard.

Outcome 21: People's personal records, including medical records, should be accurate and kept safe and confidential Personal information was securely stored.

People were not protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because the provider did not maintain accurate records and proper information in relation to the care and treatment provided to each person. The provider did not meet this standard. We have judged that this has a moderate impact on people who use the service, and have told the provider to take action.