Knollbeck

Knollbeck is a residential care home providing support and accommodation for people who have a learning disability. The service can provide support for up to 8 people. At the time of our inspection 7 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.

Right Support

Service design was extremely focused on people who used the service, and their comfort and safety was of paramount importance. The atmosphere throughout the service was vibrant and inclusive.

Risks associated with people’s care were identified and actions were taken to minimise risk and keep people safe. The service was clean and well presented. Building and maintenance checks were carried out appropriately.

People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were trained and competent in the safe handling of medicines.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to ensure risks were identified and mitigated and lessons were learnt.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care

The atmosphere throughout Knollbeck was exceptionally positive, welcoming and homely. Staff had created a culture where people were at the heart of the service and involved in every aspect of their life and this was embedded into the ethos of the service.

People told us the enjoyed living at the home and felt staff were kind, caring and supported them well. Relatives were highly complementary about the support and care their family member received.

Right Culture

People were supported in a home where managers and staff promoted person centred care and actively looked for innovative ways to ensure people lived a life they wanted to. There was a range of meaningful inclusive activities and social events that took place to ensure people had lead a fulfilling life.

Systems in place to monitor the service were effective and instrumental in identifying concerns and taking appropriate actions.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 24 October 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

The last inspection took place in July 2015 the service was rated as 'Good'. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people living at the home and to keep them safe. All the people, professionals and staff we spoke with said they thought Heathcotes (Knollbeck) was safe. Staff had completed training in how to protect people from harm and abuse and understood the different forms and potential signs of abuse. Staff told us they had confidence in the management team to deal with safeguarding issues promptly and effectively. Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber's instructions.

There was sufficient numbers of staff on duty to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people living at the home. Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The registered manager and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices and these were respected and actioned by staff.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff.

People had regular routine access to health and social care professionals where necessary. People attended health checks with a GP and had access to other medical services to ensure their health needs were met. Professionals told us there was appropriate communication between the service and themselves.

People had a choice of how they spent their time and the activities they undertook. Meals, snacks and drinks were chosen by people, which they enjoyed. People had been included in planning their own menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted upon. Some people were actively involved in meal preparation.

The service had clear complaint systems and people had regular opportunities to discuss how they felt about the service.

People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Staff reviewed plans at least monthly with input from the person who was supported. Professionals told us they were kept informed of changes to people’s support plans and were regularly invited to review meetings.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor key areas such as medicines, safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and staffing issues. People were consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

There was an effective complaints system available. One person told us they would speak to staff and managers if they were not happy.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Both people said they were happy with their care plans and they talked about things regularly with their key workers.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Both of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home and with the staff.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. People said the staff were helpful, encouraging and understanding.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.