Honeywood House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Staff ensured people had access to health and social care services to promote positive health outcomes. Where people’s communication or cognition could potentially form a barrier to care and support, staff worked with people to understand them and ensure they had access to services. People were able to give feedback through meetings and informal discussions, minutes to meetings and other important documents were available in different formats, for example, large print so people were able to access them.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff looked at options to promote positive experiences and outcomes for people. For example, where a person was noted to require a dentist, the registered manager sought a domiciliary dentist to visit the service. A relative told us about an appointment their loved one was due to attend which was a long distance away, they said, “[Registered manager] has just said [person] has to go to the hospital to have his ears syringe, as it’s a long journey she has arranged him to go to [local hospital] instead, it will be much less upheaval.” A relative told us staff responded to their suggestions, and said, “They seem to be quite aware and when I have made suggestions, for example, I suggested her ears to be syringed, I thought it might make her comfortable. They jumped on it straight away and got her an appointment. [registered manager] suggested about her teeth, little things they check, they have a dentist visit who does rounds. I am very confident that they carry out everything well there.” People were listened to and supported to utilises health and social care services. Records showed staff recognised when people needed support, for example when their health deteriorated. A health care professional told us about a person who had made improvements since living at Honeywood House, they said, “There is one patient currently who was admitted to the nursing home from hospital on end of life care medication but is now mobilising with a frame – which is a testament to their great work.”. Another health care professional said, “The resident's needs/quality of life and safety is always paramount for this nursing home. I cannot stress highly enough how well respected the residents are, even when faced with challenging behaviour the staff remain professional, kind, empathetic and respectful.”

Where people had communication needs, these were clearly documented in care plans. One person did not speak English was not their first language, staff had a translation device to use, however, some staff made the effort to learn some key words in this person’s language. People and their relatives attended regular meetings at the service. Meeting minutes showed anyone was able to participate in discussions were held in an open forum and people were invited to make suggestions. People were enabled to make comments, suggestions and complain where appropriate. The registered manager had an open door policy, for those who wished to comment anonymously, there was a suggestion box in the lobby to enable them to do so.

People who were at risk of inequalities in care were identified and staff ensured appropriate support was in place for them. Where people were not always able to freely express their views, staff would make changes in response to their reactions. For example, where a person had been assessed to receive a diet prepared to a particular consistency, they declined to eat their food. Staff contacted the speech and language therapist for a review, following this the person was happier and began to eat again. Staff gave examples of how they ensured people received person-centred care, a staff member said, “We are not rushed, it is not a conveyor belt of care. Not everyone has to be up by a certain time, we get to know the residents, you get talking to them, find out if they are a morning person or not and work around them.”

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.