You are here

Knappe Cross Care Centre Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 September 2017

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 4 and 19 July 2017.

Knappe Cross Care Centre provides care and accommodation for up to 42 older people. The home is a detached house set in its own beautiful grounds in the seaside town of Exmouth in the coastal area of East Devon. On the first day of the inspection there were 30 people staying at the service.

The service did not have a registered manager when we visited. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager had left the service the week before our inspection. They had submitted their application to the CQC to cancel their registration. A new manager had been appointed and had shadowed the registered manager for one week. They confirmed they would be completing their application with CQC to become the registered manager at the service. Although the manager had only been at the service for 7 working days, staff were very positive about their impact and said the staff morale had improved at the home. People and visitors said they had met the new manager and were also very positive about their approach. One person commented “Manager is getting involved, willing to see how things are done, taking the job seriously.”

The service was previously inspected in May and June 2016 when the service was rated as ‘Requires improvement’ overall with no breaches of regulations. The effectiveness and leadership at the service was rated as requiring improvement. This was because changes had been put into place at the service which had not been embedded and staff training and updates to ensure staff were competent and effective had not always been updated in a timely way. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made in these areas although further work was being undertaken to ensure all staff had received the provider’s mandatory training.

The new manager had identified gaps in staff training matrix and wasn’t assured staff had received all of the provider’s mandatory training. They had set up a training planner for the next year to ensure staff would receive the required training. Individual risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care plans written to show how these were being addressed. We found one person’s care plan was not fully updated to guide staff how to provide care when their needs had changed a few days before our visit due to an injury. This was reviewed promptly after we discussed it with the manager.

The manager said their first priority at the home was looking at wound care management. This was following an incident which had occurred at the home which had been reported to the local authority safeguarding which had been resolved. The CQC are working with the provider regarding this incident and whether there is any potential risk to others at the home.

People were supported to take part in some social activities. The provider was actively recruiting a new activity person. One member of staff undertook additional duties to do some one to one sessions with people. However there were still limited activities for people who remained in their rooms. After the inspection the manager told us they had arranged additional hours with a staff member to undertake more activities while they were recruiting. This was to ensure people were not at risk of social isolation.

Medicines were safely managed and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

People were supported by staff who had the required recruitment checks in place. Staff received an induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns. Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. They delive

Inspection areas



Updated 13 September 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to ensure people were kept safe and had their needs met.

People were protected from the risks of abuse by staff who understood their responsibilities.

Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.

Individual risks to people�s safety had been assessed.

The provider had robust recruitment processes in place.

The premises and equipment were managed to keep people safe.



Updated 13 September 2017

The service was effective.

It was not clear is staff that had received all of the provider�s mandatory training with some gaps identified on the provider�s training matrix. The manager had identified this and action was being taken to address this.

People were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet, with food of their choice. Specific dietary requirements were catered for.

Staff understood their responsibilities in terms of legislation. Where people�s liberty was restricted, staff had ensured they worked within the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to access health services.



Updated 13 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

People were involved in making decisions about their day to day care.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People�s families were able to visit when they wanted.



Updated 13 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records were updated when there were changes to people needs. However on one occasion we found they hadn�t been.

People were supported to take part in social activities. Improvements were being put into place to ensure people were not at risk of social isolation.

People received care that met their needs, preferences and aspirations.

There was a complaints policy and procedure. People said they knew how to complain. There was evidence to show that complaints had been dealt with in line with the provider�s policy.



Updated 13 September 2017

The service was well�led.

Staff and people knew the new manager and were very positive about the changes and impact they had already had.

Checks and audits to ensure the quality of the service were undertaken and actions were completed to make improvements where issues were identified.

People�s views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service.