CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Zinia House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, staffing, infection control and emergency arrangements were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in. Staff received induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare, consent and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to make everyday choices and retain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed when needs changed. People were supported with activities, communication, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service had a registered manager, quality checks and systems for acting on feedback. Staff, people, relatives and professionals gave positive views.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 January 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, audits and policies.
The inspectors found that people were safe and received suitable support. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and risks were assessed. Staff were trained and supported, and people had access to healthcare and a balanced diet.
Staff were described as kind and caring. People were supported to make choices, develop independence, maintain relationships and take part in activities. Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published on 21 July 2017.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had completed recruitment checks, and many had worked at the home for several years.
“There were adequate numbers of staff on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, health needs and communication methods. They were updated when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans were person centred.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, take part in activities and build practical skills.
“People were supported to make day to day decisions for themselves and were provided with choices.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff listening to people and responding patiently. People's privacy, dignity and cultural needs were respected.
“Staff were patient with people and listened to and supported them appropriately when requested.” from the report
Safe medicines
Records showed medicines were given as prescribed. Storage, staff training and checks were in place.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy activities, go into the community and keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported to follow their interests and maintain links with the wider community.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any pictures, signs or gestures they use?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their needs change?
- 03If restraint is considered for my relative, what situations could lead to it, how will it be kept to a last resort, and how will it be reviewed?
- 04How will you support my relative to make choices, take part in activities and develop independence?
- 05How would you involve my relative, our family and healthcare professionals in planning end of life care if it became necessary?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall and key question ratings were Good, published on 21 July 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and said concerns from the previous inspection had been addressed.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 21 and 27 June 2017. The inspector spoke with four people, three care staff, the registered manager and three community healthcare professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staffing records, complaints and other management records.
The home supported five adults with learning disabilities, some of whom also had mental health conditions. Inspectors found enough staff, safer restraint procedures, safe medicines management and good support with health needs. People were treated respectfully, helped to make choices and supported with activities, college, day trips and holidays.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Problems found at the June 2016 inspection about safe care and management had been addressed. Inspectors noted a small number of record-keeping issues that the registered manager agreed to improve.
Enough and consistent staff
Inspectors found enough staff and fewer occasions of staff working consecutive long days. People were supported by a stable team with a calm approach.
“There were enough staff working at the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's individual strengths, preferences, communication needs and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and take part in activities that mattered to them.
“People received personalised care and support based around individualised care plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and said they liked the home. Staff understood people well and encouraged their independence and involvement.
“The service valued people and looked to emphasise their individual strengths.” from the report
Good health support
People were helped to attend healthcare appointments and follow professional advice. Their health plans and hospital information were kept up to date.
“The service supported people well with physical and mental health needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its audits, incident reviews, restraint records and care records since the previous inspection. This helped the provider identify risks and monitor the service.
“At this inspection, we found that the provider had addressed these governance concerns.” from the report
One medicines record error
needs fixingA stock check found one significant discrepancy because the opening balance for one medicine had been added up incorrectly. Inspectors otherwise found medicines records up to date.
“Checks of stock against MAR and medicines stock-check records identified only one significant discrepancy, that the balance brought forward of one medicine was incorrectly totalled.” from the report
Reference checks
minorWritten references were not available for one new staff member before they started. The registered manager said verbal checks had taken place and agreed to improve the written record.
“However, these were not in place for one new staff member before they started working.” from the report
Best-interests records
minorCapacity assessments followed the required process, but the registered manager agreed to introduce a separate form to show best-interests decisions more clearly.
“The registered manager agreed to implement a separate 'Best Interests' form, to better guide and demonstrate that appropriate processes were followed.” from the report
- 01How are medicines recorded when they are taken out of the home for day trips or appointments?
- 02What checks are now completed before new staff start work, including written references?
- 03Is the separate best-interests form now being used for decisions about people's care?
- 04How often are restraint records, medicines and incidents audited, and what action follows any concerns?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels and staff breaks remain safe on long shifts?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it found that breaches identified at the June 2016 inspection had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 2017 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 Zinia House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnet
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 £980 to £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.