You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 June 2016

This inspection visit took place on 17 May 2016 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection on 14 November 2013 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

Honeysuckle House is registered for the regulated activity providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. The service can accommodate a maximum of twenty five older people of whose primary care needs are those of persons who live with dementia. The communal space provides two lounges and a large dining room. There is a small parking area for visitors at the front of the building. The home is situated in close proximity of Blackpool promenade and local facilities such as shops, tram routes and other community facilities. At the time of our inspection visit there were 24 people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found the registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. No offensive odours were observed by the inspector. Hand sanitiser dispensers were prominently placed around the home for the use of staff involved in the delivery of personal care.

We found recruitment procedures were safe with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. One person visiting the home said, “Always plenty of staff on duty when I visit. They are always available if you need them.”

We found equipment used by staff to support people had been maintained and serviced to ensure they were safe for use.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. One person visiting the home said, “They are very quick to get the doctor if [relative] is unwell. Always up date so I know what is going on.”

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

People were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. Regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. The cook had information about people’s dietary needs and these were being met.

People visiting the home told us they were happy with their relatives care. One person said, “[Relative] came to stay here on respite care and loved it so much they wouldn’t go home. I visit every day and have no concerns about anything.”

We saw people were happy with the activities arranged to keep them entertained. These were arranged both individually and in groups.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.

Inspection areas



Updated 14 June 2016

The service was safe.

The service had procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care.

Staffing levels were sufficient with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. The deployment of staff was well managed providing people with support to meet their needs. Recruitment procedures the service had in place were safe.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who lived at the home and staff. Written plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

People were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines. This was because medicines were managed safely.



Updated 14 June 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were sufficiently skilled and experienced to support them to have a good quality of life.

People received a choice of suitable and nutritious meals and drinks in sufficient quantities to meet their needs.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). They had knowledge of the process to follow.



Updated 14 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were able to make decisions for themselves and be involved in planning their own care.

We observed people were supported by caring and attentive staff who showed patience and compassion to the people in their care.

Staff undertaking their daily duties were observed respecting people’s privacy and dignity.



Updated 14 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People participated in a range of activities which kept them entertained.

People’s care plans had been developed with them to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided.

People told us they knew their comments and complaints would be listened to and acted on effectively.



Updated 14 June 2016

The service was well led.

Systems and procedures were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service people received.

The registered manager had clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff understood their role and were committed to providing a good standard of support for people in their care.

A range of audits were in place to monitor the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home. Quality assurance was checked upon and action was taken to make improvements, where applicable.