Honeywood House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were enabled to take positive risks and were involved with managing their care and support. People told us they felt safe and were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how and who to report concerns to. People were supported by enough skilled and trained staff, many of whom had worked at the service for a long time and knew them well.

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 Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff completed safeguarding training and demonstrated an understanding of what they would report and to whom if they suspected any abuse. The safeguarding policy was accessible and included contact details of the 2 local authorities. A staff member told us, “I have done my safeguarding training, we do it every year. I am doing it right now for this year. If anyone was treated badly, I would go to [registered manager], if they’re not available, the nurse in charge. If I needed to go outside the company, I would go the local authority. Our policy is online, and we can go back and read this.”

People were not unlawfully restricted, staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where needed, MCA assessments had been carried out to ascertain whether people had mental capacity to make decisions. Any best interest decisions for people who lacked mental capacity involved people’s legal representatives, relatives, and professionals. Where appropriate, the registered manager applied for deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) authorisations for some people. Some DoLS authorisations had conditions attached, for example, some medicines required regular review, these conditions had been met. The registered manager understood their duty to safeguard people and to investigate and escalate any concerns. Any accidents or incidents were considered under the service's safeguarding policy.

People told us they felt safe living at the service, we observed people to be relaxed in the company of staff. Comments included, “I feel completely safe, it’s a wonderful place. It’s the ethos, the staff know not to cut corners, it would not enter their heads to do so.” People said they would speak with the registered manager or nurse on charge if they had any concerns. Relative spoke positively about the staff and managements, comments included, “100% I feel relief when walking away from leaving mum after a visit. I know it’s right for her there. I could see what was going on and there is no time restrictions, this was a big thing for me. I wanted to know I could come any time of the day.”

We observed people were comfortable in the presence of staff. People were happy to spend time with staff to chat and enjoy mutual jokes with. Visiting health and social care professionals told us they had observed staff supporting people in a kind and caring way. Comments included, "As far as I know it is a lovely care home that offers great service. Residents, their families, staff and other members of the wider community team are all treated well and with respect."

Risk assessments and associated care plans were consistent and up to date, they provided sufficient information for staff to support people safely in their preferred way. When people’s needs changed, staff updated relevant care records.

People were enabled to take positive risks and were involved in the planning. One person was supported to regularly go for visits to their family home, this was risk assessed so staff ant their family members could safely support them. We observed people were able to safely leave the service in line with their risk assessments. One person was able to bring their cat to live with them, this was important to the person who said they would have not moved into a care setting without their pet. We observed the cat was living at the service in line with the risk assessment. Where people required specific risk assessments to enable them to eat safely, these were in place. Some people required their meals to be modified to minimise the risk of choking. Staff were aware of what consistency people’s meals should be, we observed meals were served at people’s correct assessed consistency.

People were enabled to take positive risks and were involved in the planning. One person was supported to regularly go for visits to their family home, this was risk assessed so staff ant their family members could safely support them. Another person was able to bring their cat to live with them, this was important to the person who said they would have not moved into a care setting without their pet. When speaking about their risk assessments, a person told us, "With my spine and my legs, it is very difficult but when I have to have my hair cut, they get me out into a comfortable wheelchair, I can sit for an hour. Not very long just while my hair is cut."

The service used an electronic care management system (ECM) which were accessible to staff at all times. Care plans and risk assessments provided details on how to safely support people in the way they preferred. A staff member said, “We find our care plans in the devices, I like to read the care plans to see if anything has changed, we have extra time to do this. You never know what might have changed. The care plans have a lot of information, after we do our job, we have a small meeting, like a handover and we talk with colleagues and nurses in case something needs changing, they will listen to us.”

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

Staff were recruited safely, pre-employment checks, such as, the right to work in the UK and verification of registered nurses PIN numbers were completed. New staff completed an induction period and the Care Certificate; the Care Certificate is an agreed set of standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in the health and social care sectors. It is made up of the 15 minimum standards that should form part of a robust induction programme. Staff were monitored through competency checks and supervisions to ensure their knowledge was practised and embedded.

We observed there were enough staff to support people. Staff had time to spend with people on an individual and social basis as well as respond to their care needs in a timely way. When people used their call bells to summons assistance, staff responded quickly.

People were supported by enough trained and skilled staff, people and their relatives spoke highly of the staff. Comments included, “There almost seems too many, they sit around with us when we ask them to.” A relative said, “They are always having courses there, in house courses. I think they keep up to date well, [registered manager] is on the ball.”

Many staff had worked at the service for a long time which meant people benefited from consistent care, people and staff knew each other well. Staff completed training relevant to their role, the registered manager sourced additional training in response to people’s changing needs. For example, it was recommended a bladder scanner was used to monitor potential urine retention for a person, the registered manager arranged the appropriate training for this. A staff member told us, “With training, if we are partially interested in anything, we can ask [registered manager], they will see if there is a course we can do. I think our training covers what we need, extra training would be given if we have someone with a new condition.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.