Knappe Cross Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us they felt safe living at thehome. One person said, “Yes, I feel well looked after here.”

Staff knew how to record and respond to accidents and incidents at the time they occurred and to seek medical advice if needed.

The provider had an electronic system for staff to record accidents and incidents. The registered manager and operations manager analysed incident, accidents and near misses to look at themes and trends.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Care records showed people’s needs and risks were assessed before and on admission to the home.

People said they saw a GP if needed. We received positive feedback from health and social care professionals we contacted. Comments included, “The manner in which they communicate is always professional, helpful and courteous” and “We have a weekly 'ward round' with the care home which is either virtual or face to face. Yes, the staff normally call when needed and appropriately.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff told us they had confidence in the registered manager and were confident they would act if they reported abuse. One staff member said, “(The registered manager) is fantastic. If I have a problem, I can go to him with anything.”

Staff had completed safeguarding training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Where DoLS applications had been submitted for people, staff had access to a folder which contained the information they needed to support them legally. Work was also being undertaken to ensure there was clear information on the electronic care system to guide staff about any restrictions for people. This meant staff were only restricting people’s liberties in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider had clear, up to date safeguarding and whistleblowing policies. All staff had access to these on the internet and in accessible folders at the home. The management team continued to work with staff to ensure they would be confident speaking out to raise concerns.

The registered manager shared concerns which staff had raised with them and the actions they had taken in response. This demonstrated staff were speaking up.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People had individual risk assessments to protect them when receiving care and support. Staff reviewed risk assessments monthly as part of the resident of the day process used at the home or more regularly if somebodies needed changing.

We observed staff answered call bells in a timely way during our visits to ensure people were safe. However, 1 person told us they had waited 45 minutes for staff to respond. The registered manager and operations manager said they would investigate this concern. As part of the provider’s quality monitoring process the registered manager and operations manager audited the call bell response times at various times of day. However, they did not have a system where they could monitor all call bell response times. They said they would increase their monitoring and work with staff about responding to bells promptly.

Improvements had been made at the service to ensure pressure mattresses were set at the correct setting and people received food at the consistencies they required.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Improvements had been made since our last assessment in December 2024 to ensure doors which needed to be locked were locked. Keypads had been positioned next to doors and staff had been reminded about the importance of keeping the home secure.

The service had appropriate systems and processes to identify concerns with the environment. Staff conducted regular visual checks and took actions. The provider had a program of audits and servicing requirements to ensure all servicing was carried out when required.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider used a dependency tool to assess staffing requirements at the home.The operations manager showed us staff were allocated to the communal area. However, people told us, and our observations found there were times when staff were not present in the main lounge. This was reviewed by the operations manager who told us the following day they had considered feedback from staff and people and had looked at the layout and scale of the home. They had decided to increase staff on duty in the mornings to ensure peak times were well supported and staff consistently monitored the lounge area.

Improvements had been made to the staff training record and the training matrix accurately reflected the training staff had received.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment records showed all pre-employment checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with people were employed.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People said the home was clean and well maintained. We observed the home was clean and tidy and no odours were present.

Staff had received training in infection control and had access to personal protective equipment.

Staff conducted infection control audits every 3 months to ensure cleanliness was maintained.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff safely managed medicines. The service had a medicines policy, to ensure staff had clear guidance to follow. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received training and competency checks to make sure they gave people medicines safely.

Handwritten medicine administration records (MAR charts) were checked and signed by a second member of staff.

Improvements had been made to ensure patch charts which recorded the site of people’s medicine patches accurately reflected their position.