Archived: The Knoll

Updated 20 July 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 19 June 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Prior to the inspection we looked at information we had about the service in the form of notifications, safeguarding concerns and whistle blowing information. We also received a provider information return (PIR) from the provider. This form asks the provider to give us some key information about what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service and three visitors. We also spoke with the registered manager, two directors and three members of staff. We reviewed records at the home including two care files, two staff personnel files, meeting minutes, training records, health and safety records and audits held by the service.

Updated 20 July 2017

The inspection took place on 19 June 2017 and was unannounced.

The Knoll is a residential care home located in Urmston, Trafford and is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care for up to 10 older people.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. 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.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who currently used the service. The service used a dependency tool and staffing levels were flexible to ensure extra staff could be deployed when the need arose. There was evidence of a robust recruitment procedure to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Safeguarding policy and procedures were in place and staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding issues and were confident to report any concerns. Accidents and incidents were logged appropriately and analysed for patterns and trends.

Health and safety information was in place and up to date. Medicines were managed safely at the service and staff were trained appropriately.

Staff induction was thorough and training was on-going with reminders in place to help ensure no staff training was out of date.

Nutritional and hydration records were complete and up to date and appropriate referrals were made to other professionals and agencies when required. The mealtime experience was pleasant and choices were offered with regard to food and drink.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We observed care throughout the day and saw that interactions between staff members and people who used the service were friendly and respectful. People’s dignity was respected and care was offered and given discreetly and sensitively.

Residents meetings and families meetings took place on a regular basis and minutes were available for those who were unable to attend. Information was given to prospective users of the service and their families in the form of an information pack.

The service had an End of Life policy in place and training was undertaken by staff. Advanced care plans, where the person’s wishes had been expressed, were included within the care files.

Care files we looked at evidenced that care was person-centred. There was a range of health and personal information and people’s preferences, likes and dislikes were recorded.

There were a variety of group activities on offer as well as one to one engagement. Questionnaires were sent out regularly to obtain people’s views of the care delivery.

There was an appropriate, up to date complaints policy and complaints were followed up in a timely way. Compliments had been received in the form of thank you cards and letters.

The registered manager had an ‘open door’ policy and was available to staff, visitors and people who used the service regularly. Staff members told us they were well supported by the registered manager and the providers.

We saw evidence of regular staff supervisions and appraisals. We saw minutes of staff meetings, which were undertaken approximately two monthly.

There were a significant number of audits undertaken by the service. Audits for issues such as accidents and incidents were analysed to look at how continual improvements could be implemented.