Knowle Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always respect people’s privacy and dignity.

Observations on our first day of assessment identified staff did not always demonstrate respect for people’s privacy and dignity needs. People had not been well supported with their personal care. For example, men had not been supported well with shaving, people’s hair had not been attended to, and some ladies were wearing ill-fitting clothing which did not protect their dignity. Staff did not always make sure people’s underclothing was not exposed during moving and handling manoeuvres and were not always discreet when speaking with people about, for example, their continence needs. At mealtimes people were not offered aprons or plate guards to lessen the risk of people’s clothes being soiled by food spillages. Although significant improvements were noted on the second day of the assessment, we had to point out to staff when a person’s ill-fitting clothing was exposing their underclothing.

Screening to protect people’s privacy in shared rooms was not effective. The provider assured us they would prioritise this.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans were highly person centred and included reference to people’s backgrounds and cultural needs. When people lived with dementia, care plans gave instruction to staff on how to manage confusion and distress in a way that met peoples individual needs. Staff knew people well and supported their preferred routines.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There were limited examples of people having choice and control over their wellbeing. One person’s care plan fully reflected their choices and how staff supported their independence, and we saw how this was done. However, people and their relatives told us access to meaningful activities was limited as were opportunities to go out. The service did not have a safe outdoor space for people to access independently although the provider told us they were looking at developing this. They also assured us they would address confusion about where people who enjoyed a smoke could go to do this.

One person was not happy about not being able to choose. They said, “There’s no bath here, I like a bath, but I can’t have one.”

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were attentive to people’s needs and provided support in a timely way. People told us there were usually staff around so could make their needs known to them.

Staff had not always felt assured that the provider cared about their wellbeing.

A lack of effective communication from a previous member of the provider’s management team had resulted in some staff had experiencing a lack of understanding about the provider’s commitment to their support and welfare.

We observed some supportive discussions between the management team and staff and the provider assured us of their ongoing commitment.