We carried out a review of the data available to us about Knightlow Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Knightlow Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Knightlow Lodge is an extra care housing site providing personal care to 23 people aged 55 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 30 people. They also offer a six week reablement service, where people are supported to regain independence and return home.
Extra care housing
People using the service lived in a block of flats on one site. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported to remain safe in their own homes as there were enough staff to visit at the agreed times. Staff were aware of their role to identify and report any concerns about a person’s safety or welfare. The provider’s systems and process supported staff to record and report these concerns to maintain people’s safety. People’s medication was managed by staff who were trained and competent to do so. Staff used gloves and aprons to help reduce the spread of infection and supported people with cleaning tasks. Incidents and accidents had been recorded and reviewed and any learning shared across the provider’s locations.
People’s needs were assessed to ensure they would benefit from the care offered by the provider. Staff were trained and supported to remain knowledgeable about how to provide effective care to people. Meals were offered and prepared to meet people’s choices and nutritional needs. The provider had developed strong links with health and social care professionals which had made a positive impact to people’s quality of life. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People had made trusting and caring relationship with staff. Staff enjoyed their role and spending time supporting people to remain socially and physically independent. People’s right to privacy was respected and staff were considerate when providing care to people in their flats. Staff took time to get to know and understand people and were free from judgement or bias.
People had been included in planning their care and support and had their choices and preferences recorded and upheld. Plans of care were regularly reviewed and people’s independence were assessed, alongside plans to rehabilitate where people were looking to return h home. Complaints and comments were welcomed by the provider and used to review and drive improvements. End of life care was offered and records reflected the choices for staff to be aware of.
The provider had clear systems and process in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. People’s views and opinions were collated and used to make changes to people’s care and support needs. The registered manager was accessible for both people and staff and they had clear expectations which staff followed and respected.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 02 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People continued to receive safe care as they were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from harm. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and plans were in place to minimise these while promoting the person’s independence. People who had support with their medicines had them administered when needed, with and by staff who were trained and competent to do so. People told us there were enough staff to support them and staff arrived on time for pre-arranged calls and responded to emergencies when required.
The service continued to be effective. Staff had received training to ensure their skills and knowledge reflected the needs of people they cared for. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and the management team checked that staff were working as expected.
Where people needed support with their meals they told us they were happy that staff ensured they received a choice. People received care and support that was in line with their consent and staff ensured they sought people’s permission before providing care and support. People were supported to access healthcare appointments as required, with staff helping with telephone calls and reminders if needed.
The service remained caring towards people. People said staff were caring and respectful and care and support provided had a positive impact on their well-being. Staff helped people to make choices about their care and felt the views and decisions they had made about their care were listened to and acted upon.
The service remained responsive to people’s needs. People told us staff respected and supported their individual needs and provided care that took account of their preferences and choices. Staff had sought new ways to provide support to people from other external services. People, relatives and health professionals spoke positively about the responsiveness of the service.
People in receipt of care had regular opportunities to feedback about the service. All people we spoke with were happy to raise concerns with staff and were confident action would be taken as a result.
The service remained well-led. The management team demonstrated clear leadership. Staff were supported to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively, so that people received care and support in-line with their needs and wishes. The management team completed regular checks and audits of the service provided and where areas for improvement were identified, systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt and used to improve the service delivery.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We undertook an announced inspection of Knightlow Lodge on 11 March 2015. We told the provider before our visit that we would be coming. This was so people could give consent for us to visit them in their flats to talk with them.
Knightlow Lodge provides housing with care. The unit consists of 30 flats, four of which are double occupancy. People live in their own home and have a tenancy agreement with Whitefriars Housing. Staff provide personal care and support to people at pre-arranged times and in emergencies. At the time of our visit 28 people used 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 told us they felt safe at Knightlow Lodge and staff understood their responsibility to keep people safe and report any concerns. There were processes to protect people from the risk of harm; these included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines.
Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care. People were supported to maintain their independence and to live their lives as they chose. People were happy with the care they received and said staff were friendly and polite. Staff treated people with respect and maintained people’s privacy and dignity when providing care.
Staff received regular training and there were enough suitably trained staff to meet people’s individual support needs. People received consistent support from care workers who knew them well. Staff had a good awareness of the needs of people they supported and people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes.
People were involved in making decisions about their care and were able to share their views and opinions about the service they received. There were processes to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through direct feedback from people, returned surveys, tenant and staff meetings and a programme of checks and audits.
Staff said they worked well as a team and received good support from the senior staff and the managers. Staff were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers and this would be listened to and acted on. The managers and staff were proud of the service people received and were motivated to provide a quality service.
People spoke positively about the care they received. One person said "The staff are very friendly, it's pretty good here." Another person said "I love everything here, we have exercises on a Tuesday and I bake cakes in my kitchen." We observed staff talking to various people during our visit. Staff were polite, caring and clearly knew the support needs of the person they were with.
We looked at how people's care was being managed. Care plans provided staff with sufficient information about the individual support needs of people and how staff were to provide support safely. We found staff supported people to maintain independence and make their own decisions. People spoke positively about the care provided. One person said, "Staff are all lovely, they are very good to me." Another said, "The care is so good. I would recommend Knightlow to anyone.'
People said they felt safe at Knightlow Lodge and there were processes in place to make sure people remained safe and well. Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise symptoms of abuse and what to do to keep people safe. We found people received their medication at the times prescribed. There were processes in place to safely recruit staff and provide staff with the training and support to meet the care needs of people.
We looked at how complaints were managed. The complaints procedure gave people clear information about how to make a complaint. No formal complaints had been received. All the people we spoke with told us they would speak to someone if they needed to.
People we spoke with said that care workers treated them with respect and maintained their privacy. 'Staff knock on the door before entering my flat or call out to let me know they are there'. The staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of peoples support needs.
We observed staff speaking to people in a respectful manner throughout our visit. A relative we spoke with said that all the staff are friendly and respectful to their relative. She told us, 'I visit regularly, staff are always friendly. Mum is well looked after here, it gives me peace of mind to know that.' People said there is a team of consistent carers who they know well. One person told us 'I'm not very good with names but I know all the faces.'
The people we spoke with told us staff encouraged them to maintain their independence and skills. One person said, 'Staff help me get up in the mornings, they let me do what I can myself but are willing to do anything I need help with.' People we spoke with said carers stayed long enough to do everything needed without rushing.
Staff knew how to recognise signs of possible abuse and what they would do to keep people safe. Care files we looked at showed that risks associated with the care of clients are assessed and reviewed. However, not all risks associated with peoples' health needs, such as epilepsy had been assessed and this could place people at risk of harm or injury. We found that people were receiving their medication as prescribed but we identified that the auditing of medication records should be improved.
People we spoke with said they had been given a tenants guide that told them about the services the agency offer. People we spoke with said they knew who to speak to if they had any concerns, and were certain their concerns would be listened to. People told us they were satisfied with the care they received. Their comments included, "I can't fault the care I get the staff will do anything they can for me."