Knapton House

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

We looked for evidence that people were safe when receiving treatments and protected from abuse and avoidable harm. We found some procedures had not been followed effectively and have asked the service provider for an action plan in response.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a policy and procedure to investigate safety concerns and act on them appropriately. Although the service had not received any formal concerns, their procedures outlined how lessons from concerns raised would be learnt and acted on to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had processes to report incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints, although the provider had not received any formal complaints, they were able to explain effectively how they would be managed.

We found the service used relevant current clinical guidance to establish and maintain safe systems. The guidance used was service appropriate and well managed.

There were systems in place to record information relating to new people’s needs when accessing the service. The service worked with people’s GP practices with people’s permission when this was necessary for their continued treatment.

The clinic worked with people and local healthcare providers to understand what being safe meant and the best way to achieve that. We saw the service provider had an updated safeguarding policy in place. The service treated adults and children for regulated treatments (and had measures to ensure children were treated appropriately within the service registration).

We saw appropriate safeguarding training and procedures to safeguard people receiving treatments provided at the service.

Staff who acted as chaperones were trained for the role and had received a DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) check.

We observed the provider thought holistically about people to meet their needs, they were supportive, and ensured people could make decisions about their treatment in a way that mattered to them.

Although the service provider did not see acutely unwell people, they understood their responsibilities to manage emergencies and to recognise those in need of urgent medical attention. Emergency equipment and medicine was available. The provider explained how they could recognise a deteriorating person and knew the action to take. For example, if a patient showed signs of an anaphylactic reaction during treatment.

There were cleaning procedures in place to ensure the premises were maintained; however, we found procedures had not been followed effectively. For example, the environment was cluttered with equipment no longer used or broken, and cardboard boxes with stock for the service. This presented a trip hazard to people and staff and an inability to clean premises and surfaces effectively. We also found that sharps containers were not secure, equipment used at the service needed regular calibration and checking for assurance it was safe to use and mitigate risks to keep people safe.

We asked for assurance that the service environment and equipment was safe, to mitigate the risks found. We were provided assurances within 48 hours of our request with photographic evidence of actions undertaken. Although this showed the service was responsive, these actions will need to be embedded and maintained within the service’s regular procedures to ensure future safety.

The service provider had safe and effective staff. We found staff training was up to date, with learning needs and development managed appropriately. We observed the provider was working within their agreed areas of competence.

Safe recruitment processes were seen and DBS (Disclosure Barring Service) checks for staff had been carried out.

The service provider had an infection control policy and procedures. They carried out infection control and hand-washing audits every 6 months to manage the risk of infection. Cleaning processes and logs were in place; however, we found procedures had not been followed effectively. For example, some areas required additional cleaning and a used mop had not been stored safely. We also observed the building was cluttered and untidy which impacted the ability of staff to keep surfaces clean effectively.

We asked for assurance that the service provider had mitigated cleaning risks. We were provided assurances within 48 hours of our request with photographic evidence of actions undertaken. Although this showed the service was responsive these actions will need to be embedded and maintained within the service’s regular processes to ensure future safety.

People using the service told us they felt safe having their treatment at the service, however, did mention it was cluttered.

Staff had relevant infection control training.

The service provider used a small range of medicines, which were appropriate for the treatments they provided. People were involved with the planning of their treatments, this included when medicines were prescribed.

People receiving treatment knew what to do and who to contact if they experienced any unexpected symptoms. The service provider followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely, and that people received the appropriate recommended advice.

We found the service provider had effective systems to manage and respond to medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA) safety alerts and medicine recalls.

Medicines were stored securely and there was a procedure to ensure stock levels and expiry dates were checked this included emergency medicines and medicines to manage an anaphylactic reaction during treatment, however, we found procedures had not been followed effectively. For example, we found some medicines were out of date and there was no temperature control for medicines recorded.

We asked for assurance that the service provider had mitigated medicine risks. We were provided assurances within 48 hours of our request with photo evidence of actions undertaken to mitigate risk. Although this showed the service was responsive these actions will need to be embedded and maintained to ensure future safety.