CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Netley Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Netley Court was rated Good; inspectors found kind care and safe systems, but concerns about staffing, medicines recording and management visibility.
Inspectors visited without notice on 13 and 14 June 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and staff records, and checked medicines, infection control and quality checks.
People and relatives generally said the care was safe and kind. Inspectors found safe recruitment, risk checks, clean premises, suitable infection control and staff who treated people with dignity. However, some staff said there were not enough experienced staff, and they lacked time to read care information or spend time with people.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, caring and well-led were rated Good. Effective and responsive were not rated in this inspection. The overall rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection, published on 26 March 2020.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff supported people to make choices and promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us that staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home completed the required recruitment checks before staff started work.
“Staff were safely recruited and all requirements of Schedule three of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been met.” from the report
Clean premises and infection control
Inspectors found the premises very clean and were assured that infection prevention measures were in place.
“The premises were very clean and we saw records that showed regular cleaning took place.” from the report
Risk and quality checks
The home used risk assessments and audits, and checked equipment and care processes. Incidents and near misses were reviewed and learning was shared with staff.
“Accidents, incidents and near misses were analysed both at the time of the incident and afterwards when audited.” from the report
Staffing experience and availability
seriousSeveral staff said there were too few experienced staff and too many inexperienced agency staff. One concern was that a person might try to transfer without support because staff were busy, creating a risk of falling.
“So they will often [transfer without support]. Which is dangerous, they could fall.” from the report
Medicine storage and recording
needs fixingOne medicine refrigerator was regularly outside the recommended temperature range and staff had not acted on this. Homely remedies were recorded in daily notes rather than the medicines record, so the full medicine history might not be clear.
“Therefore, we were not assured that staff or visiting healthcare professions would be able to identify all administered medicines effectively.” from the report
Limited management visibility
needs fixingStaff said managers were not always approachable, did not provide enough hands-on support and were not available on site outside office hours. People also said they rarely saw the management team.
“People were not familiar with the current management team.” from the report
Not enough time for people
needs fixingStaff said they did not always have time to read care information or spend time talking with people. This may affect how well staff get to know each person.
“There is a lot of information on the residents, I feel that there is enough information but staff don't get the time to read through all the information” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough experienced staff on each shift, including when agency staff are used?
- 02What action was taken about the medicine refrigerator being outside the recommended temperature range?
- 03How are homely remedies recorded now, so staff and visiting healthcare professionals can see all medicines given?
- 04Who provides management support outside 09:00 to 17:00 on weekdays and at weekends?
- 05How do staff make sure they have time to read each person's care information and spend time getting to know them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not rated, and the other ratings were not carried over in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control at the home.
Inspectors visited the home on 25 November 2020 as part of a coronavirus infection control review. The inspection was announced and focused on how the home prevented and managed infection.
Inspectors found clear measures for visitors, including temperature checks, questions before entry, personal protective equipment and a separate visiting room. They were also assured about testing, admissions, social distancing, cleaning, staff training and the use of protective equipment.
The home supported people's social and emotional needs through online services, entertainment and socially distanced activities. It also introduced weekly emails to relatives and offered video and telephone contact.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection control, but it does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other care questions.
Safer visiting
The home had several controls to reduce the risk of infection during visits, including protective equipment and a specially arranged visiting room.
“Visitors were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) and visits took place in a designated visitor's room which included Perspex partitions and separate entrance and exit areas.” from the report
Activities and contact
The home continued activities and supported contact with relatives despite restrictions on visiting.
“Socially distanced group activities had taken place based on risk assessments of day to day events and the provider had implemented changes to ensure people's social, spiritual and emotional needs continued to be met.” from the report
Communication with relatives
The home changed how it collected feedback and introduced regular updates for relatives.
“Weekly emails to relatives had been introduced, which had improved communication.” from the report
Staff preparation
Staff received coronavirus-specific training, and handwashing checks were used to assess their practical skills.
“In addition to the standard infection control training, COVID-19 specific training had been provided and handwashing competency assessments completed to ensure staff had the required knowledge.” from the report
Safer admissions
New residents needed a negative coronavirus test before moving in and had a settling-in period with restricted access to parts of the building.
“New residents were required to have a negative COVID-19 test result prior to moving in, along with a 14-day settling in period that included restricted access to parts of the building.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visits currently managed, including protective equipment and any visiting room arrangements?
- 03How does the home support residents who cannot safely self-isolate because of cognitive impairment?
- 04How are relatives kept informed about changes to visiting, activities and infection risks?
- 05How are staff's infection control skills and handwashing practice checked now?
This was an announced coronavirus thematic review focused on infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Netley Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodCaring: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 April 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.