Knapton House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred treatments; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service ‘values’ were displayed on the front page of their website. The service provider aspired to provide the best standard of person-focused care. The service provider described their vision for the future to expand and develop the services provided.

The service provider had the capacity and skills to deliver high-quality, sustainable outcomes. They were knowledgeable about issues and priorities relating to the quality and future of their services.

Although there had been no ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ or ‘Whistle Blowing’ concerns raised, information was available for people and those that worked at the service to raise an issue should the need arise.

Staff told us they were encouraged to share their views, were able to raise concerns and felt listened to. Staff told us they felt confident that their voices were heard and gave examples of changes that had been made based on their feedback.

The service provider told us that people working at the service were valued team members. Training relating to equality, diversity and inclusion had been undertaken. Staff told us they were provided training, development, and learning, and felt valued by management.

There were clear responsibilities, roles, and systems of accountability and governance. The governance arrangements were appropriate for the range of treatments provided and delivered at the service; however, some processes were not followed effectively. This included a business continuity plan in the event of disruption to the service with advice and support for staff.

We found policies, procedures and governance arrangements were regularly updated for sustainability at this service. However, the procedure to check and monitor medicines had not been followed effectively for example, we found some medicine items were out of date, medical equipment had not been calibrated and checked regularly, and the cleaning procedures were not effective.

We were provided examples of partnership working with local healthcare providers including GP practices for signposting to ensure people received holistic person-centred care.

There was a focus on learning and improvement at the service. Developments and improvements at the service were seen. The provider had used information from different sources, including feedback from those that received treatments. For example, online booking software for people to book and correspond with the service.

The service provider explained they had plans for future development at the service. This included portable audiology equipment to enable appropriate testing to be undertaken within a ground-floor clinical room.