CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Honister
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found individual risk assessments, fire checks, safe medicines practice, suitable recruitment checks and effective infection prevention arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs were assessed and staff supported them to access healthcare. Staff had relevant training, and people were offered food, drinks and choices suited to their needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, friendly and helpful. Inspectors saw patient interactions and found that people were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported by staff who knew them well.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reflected people's individual needs. Activities, communication support and visiting arrangements were available, although inspectors saw one instance where a person needed to point out that personal care was required.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems and audits had improved since the previous inspection. People, relatives and staff said they were listened to, and the management team used feedback, incidents and complaints to identify learning.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some checks needed around personal care and the home environment.
The inspection took place without notice on 3 October 2023. One inspector spoke with five people, three relatives or friends and seven staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they were happy with the care and felt safe. Inspectors found medicines, infection control, staffing and risk management were handled well.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in October 2019. Inspectors found better risk management, fire safety and management checks. They also noted a small number of issues, including one person needing to point out that personal care was needed and too many posters making parts of the building feel less homely.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked a sample of medicines and records and found them correct. Staff had training and regular audits were carried out.
“We checked a random sample of medicines and records and found these were all correct.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people politely and supporting them patiently.
“People told us the staff were kind, friendly and helpful.” from the report
Improved management
The home had made progress since the previous inspection. Its risk management, fire safety and governance systems were more effective.
“There had been improvements since the last inspection.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to choose how to spend their days. The home offered activities including quizzes, music, baking, celebrations and days out.
“People joined in with a quiz on the day of inspection.” from the report
Personal care checks
needs fixingInspectors saw one person who needed personal care being taken to the dining room and having to alert staff. The home addressed this with staff and provided further training and supervision.
“We did observe an instance of a person in need of personal care was being escorted to the dining room and needed to bring it to the staff member's attention.” from the report
- 01What has happened with the change from the previous registered manager to the acting manager?
- 02How do staff now check whether people need personal care before meals or activities?
- 03Have the posters been reduced or moved, and how do you help people find their bedrooms?
- 04How are medicines audits reviewed, and what happens if an error is found?
- 05How are residents' and relatives' views used to change care or activities?
This planned inspection looked at all five CQC questions and included infection prevention and control, observations, conversations and records checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and responsive, but safety, records and management systems still needed work, although special measures ended.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 1 October 2019. Two inspectors spoke with five people, five staff members, the manager and the provider. They reviewed four people's care records, medicines records and other management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People and staff described the new manager positively. Care was caring and responsive, and people said their needs were met. However, some safety checks and records were not reliable enough. Medicines records, food and fluid charts, fire training, unexplained injuries and personal care records needed closer attention.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had improved from the previous inspection, but it had been rated Requires Improvement for the last three inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff offering choices and supporting people patiently.
“People told us that they felt the staff were kind and respectful.” from the report
Improved activities
The range of activities had grown since the previous inspection. People were seen enjoying activities during the visit.
“Staff told us that they felt activities in the home had improved since the last inspection and activities were offered every day.” from the report
Positive management change
People and staff felt the home had improved under the new manager. The manager was visible and approachable.
“Feedback about the management of the home from people and staff was positive and everyone felt the new manager had a positive impact on the home.” from the report
Medicines records did not always match
seriousTwo medicines counted by inspectors did not match the records. The home's daily checks had not found the errors.
“We counted a random sample of medicines and found that two of those counted did not tally with records.” from the report
Fire training was incomplete
seriousNot all staff had attended fire drills, and some did not know what to do in an emergency.
“However, not all staff had attended fire drills and not all staff knew what to do in the event of an emergency.” from the report
Nutrition records were incomplete
needs fixingFood and fluid charts for people at risk of not eating or drinking enough had not been completed properly. Fluids had not been totalled for the week before the inspection.
“However, they had not been completed on the day of inspection and fluids were not tallied for the week leading up to inspection.” from the report
Best-interest decisions were unfinished
needs fixingSome decisions for people unable to make particular decisions themselves had not been fully recorded.
“However, best interest decisions had not been fully completed for everyone.” from the report
Care records had gaps
needs fixingRecords did not always show whether baths and showers had taken place. Monitoring charts were not always completed.
“We also found that records were not always completed consistently.” from the report
Unexplained injuries were not investigated
seriousTwo unexplained injuries had no recorded investigation within the home. The management team had not identified that they needed to be reported.
“However, we noted that two unexplained injuries did not have a recorded investigation within the home to try to establish the cause.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now counted and checked so that records always match?
- 02Have all staff completed fire drills, and how do you check that they know what to do in an emergency?
- 03How do you record food and fluid intake for people at risk of poor nutrition or dehydration?
- 04Have all outstanding capacity assessments and best-interest decisions been completed?
- 05How do you now check that baths, showers and other personal care are recorded accurately?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including care, nursing and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 2019 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 Honister
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 February 2018.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.