CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Honey Lane Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found gaps in repositioning records and minor problems with medicines processes. Staffing levels and recent risk monitoring had improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised care, activities and support with communication and relationships. Some care plans did not reflect people's current needs, and the provider was asked to review them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager and senior team had improved staffing, training, responsibility and oversight after concerns were raised.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always safe and rated Safe Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 15 February 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and observed care.
The home had improved staffing levels, risk oversight and management after concerns about safeguarding, staffing and risk. However, older repositioning records had significant gaps, and some medicines processes needed improvement. The home’s current repositioning records had improved.
People received personalised care and took part in activities they enjoyed. Relatives said communication was good and staff were kind. Care plan reviews still needed improvement, and the home was asked to consider best practice on this.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection. Safe fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good. Well-led stayed Good.
Improved staffing
The provider increased staffing levels for day and night. Inspectors observed enough staff to support people safely during the visit.
“During the inspection our observations showed there were sufficient staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and personal care
People and relatives described staff as kind and said they were happy with the support. Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and people.
“Throughout the inspection the staff interactions with people that used the service were positive.” from the report
Activities and interests
People were supported with activities, hobbies, cultural events and relationships that mattered to them.
“People were supported to take part in a variety of activities such as afternoon tea parties, knitting, baking, aromatherapy events, games, movies and outside entertainers.” from the report
Management improvements
A new manager had strengthened risk monitoring, staffing, training and accountability after concerns were identified.
“A new manager had been recruited at the service and they and their senior team had made significant improvements to address the concerns.” from the report
Incomplete repositioning records
seriousRecords intended to show that people were repositioned to reduce the risk of skin damage had significant gaps in 2021. Recent records had improved, but this was the main reason Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
“there were significant gaps identified in repositioning charts.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingMedicine stock was difficult to reconcile until return medicines were removed from the electronic system. Some liquid medicines did not have opening dates on the bottles.
“Whilst regular checks were carried out on the medicine system is was difficult to reconcile as return medicines needed to be removed from the system.” from the report
Care plans did not always match current needs
needs fixingSome updated risk information had not been used to update every part of a person’s care plan. The provider was asked to consider best practice on reviewing care plans.
“this information had not always been used to review all parts of the care plan.” from the report
End of life records
needs fixingOne person’s care plan did not fully reflect that they were receiving end of life care. Two DNACPR documents also needed review, although the manager sent updated information after the inspection.
“However, two DNACPR documents required review.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that repositioning records are completed on time for every person who needs this support?
- 02How are medicines returned to the home dealt with in the electronic medicine system?
- 03How do you record the opening dates of liquid medicines kept in the fridge?
- 04How often are care plans checked to make sure every section reflects a person’s current needs?
- 05Have the two DNACPR documents and end of life care records now been reviewed and updated?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected at this visit, and ratings for questions not inspected carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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, February 2021
Honey Lane Care Home: targeted infection control inspection found good practice, but the service was inspected and not rated.
The CQC visited the home on 05 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found good practice. This included a visiting pod, safe admissions, social distancing, regular health checks, cleaning schedules and infection control audits.
The inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment, testing and outbreak procedures. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safer visiting
The home had created a visiting pod in the garden, using plastic screens to support socially distanced visits.
“A visiting pod had been developed to enable safe, socially distanced visiting with plastic screens in the garden.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had an admissions process that followed current guidance.
“The service has a robust admissions procedure in place in line with current guidance.” from the report
Health monitoring
People had regular temperature and oxygen checks so that support and treatment could be provided promptly.
“People had their temperature and oxygen saturation levels monitored regularly so relevant support and treatment could be provided promptly.” from the report
Cleaning and audits
Cleaning routines were being followed, and infection control audits were in place. Identified actions were dealt with promptly.
“Infection prevention and control audit checks were in place and where actions were identified, they were addressed in a timely manner.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and is the visiting pod still being used?
- 02How do you monitor residents' temperatures and oxygen saturation levels now?
- 03How often are cleaning schedules and infection control audits completed?
- 04How are staff and residents tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 05How do you make sure new admissions follow the current infection control procedure?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2021 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 Honey Lane Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 2011.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums 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.