We carried out a review of the data available to us about Knowle House Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Knowle House Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The service was clean and tidy. Cleaning tasks were consistently completed. There were appropriate policies and procedures for infection prevention and control (IPC), which were understood and followed by staff. Staff were wearing appropriate PPE in-line with government guidelines. Staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training which included the safe use of PPE. Staff had regular competency checks for effective handwashing and the donning and doffing of PPE.
People were supported to maintain their relationships with friends and family where they wished to do so. There were systems in place for safe visiting, this included screening for symptoms and temperature checks prior to entry to the service. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for visitors use.
The registered manager completed risk assessments to promote people’s safety. They worked with the Local Authority and Public Health England to manage COVID-19. The registered manager ensured there was an appropriate COVID-19 testing regime in-line with current government guidelines.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Knowle House Nursing Home provides personal care, accommodation and nursing care for up to 35 people. On the day of our inspection there were 25 older people at the service, some of whom were living with dementia and chronic health conditions. The service is spread over three floors with a passenger lift, communal lounge/dining room, conservatory and a garden.
People’s experience of using this service:
Although regular quality audits were completed to manage oversight of the service, we found improvements were needed for the management of pressure relieving equipment and ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines. For both these concerns, we considered the risk and impact on people to be mitigated. The manager acknowledged these were areas for improvement and immediately rectified these shortfalls.
People told us they experienced safe care. People told us, “I am comfortable here, it’s clean and I love the garden.” Another person said, “The staff are all very caring, very polite and respectful.” A relative said, “All the staff are very approachable and will always make time to talk to us.” We observed, and people told us that staff met their needs with care and kindness.
Training, policy guidance and safe systems of work minimised the risk of people being exposed to harm. Staff understood how to safeguard people at risk and how to report any concerns they may have. People’s needs and the individual risks they may face were assessed and recorded. Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked or investigated by the manager to see what steps could be taken to prevent these happening again. This ensured lessons were learnt.
There were policies and procedures in place for the safe administration of medicines. Registered nurses followed these policies and had been trained to administer medicines safely.
Safe recruitment practices had been followed before staff started working at the service. Staff were deployed in a planned way, with the correct training, skills and experience to meet people’s needs. Nursing staff received clinical supervision and training.
The premises were well-maintained, clean and infection control measures followed. People told us the home was ‘clean’ and ‘tidy’. Relatives spoken with had no concerns about the cleanliness of the service.
Care plans had been developed to assist staff to meet people’s needs in an effective way. Staff applied best practice principles, which led to effective outcomes for people and supported a good quality of life. The care plans were consistently reviewed and updated. Referrals were made appropriately to outside agencies when required. For example, GPs, community nurses and speech and language therapists (SALT).
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The care offered was inclusive and based on policies about Equality, Diversity and Human Rights.
People’s nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People had a choice of meals provided and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People gave positive feedback about the food. Comments included, “Nice variety,” and “Good food”
Staff always treated people with respect and kindness and were passionate about providing a quality service that was person centred.
The care was designed to ensure people's independence was encouraged and maintained. Staff supported people with their mobility and encouraged them to remain active. People were encouraged to live a fulfilled life with activities of their choosing and were supported to keep in contact with their families.
People were involved in their care planning. End of life care planning and documentation guided staff in providing care at this important stage of people’s lives. End of life care was delivered professionally and with compassion.
People, their relatives and health care professionals had the opportunity to share their views about the service. Complaints made by people or their relatives were taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.
Rating at last inspection:
This service was registered with us on 02/07/2018 and this is the first inspection.
Why we inspected:
This inspection took place as part of our planned programme of inspections.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.