CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Zetland Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had safe infection control arrangements, including testing, PPE, cleaning, visitor checks and plans for managing outbreaks. The provider also had measures to reduce the risks linked to COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Zetland Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 01 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, supporting safe admissions and visits, and managing the risk of infection outbreaks. The home was clean, had an up-to-date infection control policy and used plans to separate areas during an outbreak.
Sixteen people told inspectors they were happy with their care and felt safe. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other key areas of care.
Infection control
The home had supplies of PPE, staff used it correctly, and staff had training in infection prevention and control.
“Supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) were in good supply and we observed staff wearing this correctly.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were checked through rapid testing, temperature checks and hand hygiene. Visiting professionals had their vaccination status checked.
“There were safe practices in place for welcoming visitors to the home.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had contingency plans to separate areas if there was an outbreak. It also carried out regular cleanliness audits, including an external audit.
“Emergency contingency plans in place meant that the home could work safely during an outbreak by zoning off areas within the home.” from the report
People felt safe
The people inspectors spoke with were happy with their care and said staff helped them stay in contact with loved ones.
“The best thing about it all is when you go to bed at night, you know you are safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are current staffing pressures affecting care and support for residents?
- 02How are visitors tested and checked before entering the home?
- 03How often are staff tested, and how do you make sure PPE is used correctly?
- 04What would happen if there were an infection outbreak in the home?
- 05How would you support contact with relatives if visiting arrangements had to change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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, May 2018
Zetland Court is rated Good; inspectors found caring and responsive support, with some records and staffing issues to check.
This was an unannounced inspection over two visits. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, health and social care professionals, and the manager. They also reviewed care records, staff records, audits, and accident and incident records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe and were supported by staff who knew their needs, preferences and risks. Medicines, safeguarding, food, health care and activities were managed well.
There were some shortfalls. Records did not always show what staff knew about people's risks, staffing had been difficult at weekends, and some oral care recording needed improvement. A suction machine was not easy to reach, but this was fixed immediately. The home remained Good overall, with no serious risks or concerns found.
Kind, personalised care
Staff knew people well and supported their independence, choices and communication needs. People and relatives described the care and atmosphere positively.
“People were supported by caring staff who worked to ensure they enjoyed lives that reflected their life experiences and preferences.” from the report
Good safety support
Staff understood people's risks, safeguarding duties and medicines support. Risks were discussed with relatives and professionals so people could retain independence.
“People were supported by staff who understood the risks people faced and were motivated to support them to live full lives.” from the report
Strong leadership and monitoring
Staff were proud of their work and felt involved in improvements. Audits and analysis of people's experiences helped guide care plan reviews and staff development.
“Robust monitoring led to improved outcomes for people and staff.” from the report
Good food and choice
People had enough to eat and drink, with varied menus planned with their involvement. They could choose where to eat and mealtimes could be social.
“People enjoyed food that they described as being 'superb'.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not always show the knowledge staff had about people's risks. The manager and senior staff had started work to address this.
“Records did not always reflect the knowledge held by staff.” from the report
Weekend staffing
needs fixingPeople and relatives said staffing had been problematic, particularly at weekends, and there had been use of agency staff. The manager said vacancies had been filled and new staff were starting.
“Staff levels are generally ok, but at the weekend they are not good.” from the report
Oral care recording
needs fixingRecording about oral care had not always been effective. Senior staff had identified this and introduced extra monitoring and raised staff awareness.
“We noted that recording around oral care had not always been effective, this had already been identified by senior staff and awareness was being raised amongst the staff team and additional monitoring had been introduced.” from the report
Emergency equipment access
seriousA suction machine needed in an airway emergency was not easy to reach during the inspection. This was corrected immediately.
“We found that a suction machine that would be used in an emergency to clear a person’s airway was not easily accessible.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure care records accurately reflect each person's risks and the support staff must provide?
- 02What staffing levels are planned for weekends, and how often are agency staff used now?
- 03How do you check that oral care is being provided and recorded consistently?
- 04Where is emergency airway equipment kept, and how do you check that it remains immediately accessible?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and the home's improvement work?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC question areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 2018 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 Zetland Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 2016.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.