CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Honeysuckle House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about several infection-control arrangements, including preventing infections, safe admissions and responding to infection risks. They were only somewhat assured about PPE use, cleaning, training and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control processes but some gaps in PPE practice, cleaning, supplies and visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures affected people. The report gives the inspection visit date as both 15 December 2022 and 21 December 2022.
Inspectors found good systems for reducing infection risks. These included handling laundry and waste safely, clear signs, ventilation, COVID-19 testing, and handwashing facilities and protective equipment for visitors and staff.
There were also shortfalls. Some staff did not use protective equipment in the recommended way. Some bathrooms lacked handwashing supplies, one bathroom was not cleaned to schedule, and some staff still needed infection-control and food-hygiene training. Visits had been managed using outdated guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so the report does not provide an overall Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection-control systems
The home had broad processes to reduce the risk of infections spreading between people, staff and visitors.
“The provider had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Handling laundry and waste
Staff used a strong process for items that might be contaminated.
“Staff followed a robust process in place to handle potentially contaminated items such as laundry or waste.” from the report
Clear guidance around the home
Signs reminded people, staff and visitors about infection-control measures. Windows were also opened for ventilation.
“The provider ensured there was good signage throughout the home to prompt people, staff and visitors about infection prevention and control measures.” from the report
Testing and entry facilities
People and staff took part in COVID-19 testing, and visitors and staff could use a mobile handwashing station and protective equipment when entering.
“Visitors and staff had access to a mobile, foot operated handwash station and PPE upon entry to the home.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw all staff wearing protective equipment, but some did not follow recommended practice. The provider said it would provide additional training.
“Inspectors witnessed all staff wore PPE but not all staff followed best practice.” from the report
Handwashing supplies were missing
needs fixingSome bathrooms had not been replenished, so people and staff could not always access the items needed for hand hygiene.
“However, during our visit, some bathrooms had not been replenished so items were not available for use.” from the report
Cleaning checks needed strengthening
needs fixingOne bathroom was not cleaned as scheduled and some areas had been missed. The provider created an action plan and planned stronger checks.
“One bathroom had not been cleaned as per schedules in place and a few areas of the home had been overlooked.” from the report
Some training was outstanding
needs fixingA small number of staff still needed infection-control and food-hygiene training.
“When observing the training matrix, it was identified a small number of staff were still to undertake Infection Control and Food Hygiene training.” from the report
Visiting arrangements were outdated
needs fixingVisitors had to book in advance and take mandatory tests under outdated guidance. Inspectors said this may have reduced how often relatives could visit.
“Visitors had to pre-arrange time with loved ones and testing was mandatory.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the additional infection-control and food-hygiene training?
- 02How do you check that staff use PPE correctly every time?
- 03How do you make sure bathrooms always have soap, paper towels and other handwashing supplies?
- 04What changes were made after the action plan for cleaning and the more robust audit?
- 05What are the current visiting and testing arrangements, and can relatives visit without unnecessary restrictions?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not rate the home overall or assess all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2023 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control practices at the home.
The inspection took place on 18 November 2020 as part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic. It was announced in advance.
Inspectors found robust arrangements to reduce the spread of infection. These included staff training, frequent cleaning, correct use of protective equipment, testing, risk assessments and controls for visitors and admissions.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a separate rating for the other areas of care.
Infection controls
The home had policies, staff training and checks in place to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The provider had robust practices to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Cleaning and protective equipment
Inspectors saw frequent cleaning, enough protective equipment and staff using it correctly. The manager and provider checked this.
“Staff carried out a frequent and thorough cleaning regime. There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff wore this correctly.” from the report
Contact with families
People were able to stay in touch with relatives using phones, email and social media during the visiting restrictions.
“People kept in touch with families by phone, emails and social media.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
Senior staff assessed each person and staff member for vulnerability to COVID-19 and considered what action was needed.
“Senior staff completed risk assessments on and with each person supported and each staff member.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are cleaning arrangements and the use of PPE checked now?
- 02How are individual infection risks assessed with each person living at the home?
- 03How do you keep the infection prevention and control policy up to date?
- 04How are new admissions and visitors managed under your current arrangements?
- 05How will people keep in touch with their families if visiting restrictions are needed?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control, and it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 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.
Every inspection of Honeysuckle House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.