CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Honeysuckle Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and there were enough experienced staff. Inspectors found some garden hazards and incomplete accident records, but the manager took action during or after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection, although inspectors described staff as caring and dedicated and found that people were treated with dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection, although inspectors found personalised care, activities and support for people to take part in community life.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a warm and caring culture, but its checks did not always identify gaps in records, expired training and an outdated safeguarding procedure. This limited assurance that care and risks were being managed consistently.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; Honeysuckle Farm provided safe, caring support, but its leadership and record keeping required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe. People were described as happy and safe, with enough staff, personalised care, activities and good access to healthcare. Infection control arrangements were also found to be effective.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some records were incomplete, essential staff training was not fully up to date, and the provider's checks had not identified all these issues. Inspectors said the quality of care was good, but the home could not always prove from its records that care had been provided as planned.
People's quality of life
People were happy and enjoyed a wide range of activities at the home and in the community. The home had its own day centre and a full-time activities co-ordinator.
“People using the service had a good quality of life.” from the report
Caring staff
Staff knew people well and supported them in a warm, respectful way. Care plans and bedrooms were personalised to people's needs and preferences.
“Staff were caring and dedicated to the people they supported.” from the report
Staffing and healthcare
Inspectors found enough staff during the day and night. Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals and people had good access to healthcare.
“The service employed experienced and caring staff members who knew people well.” from the report
Infection control
The home had arrangements for infection prevention, safe visiting and the use of protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that it could respond to infection risks.
“Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect people and others from infection.” from the report
Garden safety
needs fixingParts of the garden had uneven surfaces, trip hazards and an unlocked shed containing tools. A risk assessment for the person who used the garden independently was written after inspectors raised the issue.
“Some areas of the garden were potentially unsafe due to uneven surfaces, tripping hazards, and an unlocked shed containing garden tools.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingSome people's weight, food and fluid records had gaps. Inspectors found no concern about the care itself, but the records did not always show clearly that planned care had been provided.
“There were gaps in some people's records, for example, weight and food and fluid charts.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingNot all staff had completed essential training, and some training had expired. The provider's latest audit had not identified this shortfall.
“Not all staff had completed their essential training and some staff member's training had expired.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingThe home's governance systems did not always find and address shortfalls. Its safeguarding procedure also needed updating to clarify responsibilities.
“Improvements were needed to governance systems to ensure shortfalls at the service were always identified and addressed by the provider and registered manager.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove or control the uneven surfaces, trip hazards and unlocked garden shed?
- 02How do you now check that weight, food and fluid records are completed accurately and regularly?
- 03Have all staff completed their essential training, and how do you prevent training from expiring?
- 04What changes have been made to the provider's quality checks and safeguarding procedure?
- 05How will you show families that planned care is being delivered and recorded consistently?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 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, March 2021
Honeysuckle Farm was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, with a small reporting shortfall and some cleaning-related maintenance needed.
This was a focused inspection on 15 February 2021 after concerns about safe care. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with managers and staff, checked records, medicines, recruitment and training documents, and reviewed further information after the visit.
The home was warm and welcoming. People appeared relaxed and involved in activities such as gardening, exercise, knitting, puzzles and helping with meals. Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and procedures to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
The home had systems for checking quality, listening to people and planning for emergencies. One incident had not been reported to CQC at the time, although it had been reported to other agencies and was submitted after the inspection. Inspectors also noted that some surfaces needed regular decoration so they could be cleaned properly.
Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Warm and supportive atmosphere
People appeared relaxed and staff had caring, supportive conversations with them. People took part in individual and group activities and everyday household tasks.
“We found Honeysuckle Farm to be warm and welcoming, we saw and heard many caring and supportive conversations between people and staff.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed and reviewed, and emergency evacuation plans were in place. Medicines were given safely and staff had their competence checked.
“Comprehensive risk assessments were undertaken and regularly reviewed, which included the involvement of health care professionals.” from the report
People’s views shaped the service
People, families and staff could share their views through meetings and surveys. The home used this feedback to plan improvements, including better garden access.
“People's views, and that of family members were sought through meetings and surveys.” from the report
Strong infection control response
The home had a separate visiting room, used PPE and testing, and had plans for managing COVID-19 risks and possible outbreaks.
“A visiting room had been created, with screening in an adjacent building.” from the report
One late CQC notification
needs fixingThe manager had not reported one incident to CQC when required. The information was sent after the inspection, while other agencies had already been informed.
“However, one incident had not been reported to CQC, other agencies including the local authority had been informed.” from the report
Some surfaces needed maintenance
minorInspectors said architraves and skirting boards needed regular decoration so they could be wiped down and cleaned.
“Regular decoration of architrave and skirting boards was needed to ensure surfaces could be wiped down and cleaned.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the incident that was reported to CQC only after the inspection?
- 02Have the architraves and skirting boards been redecorated so they can be cleaned properly?
- 03How are medicines reviewed when they affect people’s anxiety, pain, eating or quality of life?
- 04How are family visits arranged now, and what visiting arrangements are available if infection risks arise?
- 05Has the planned patio area been completed to improve access to the garden for people with mobility difficulties?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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 Honeysuckle Farm
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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 Leicestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with 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.