Honeydew Healthcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

This service scored 89 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. This meant people always received the most up to date support in line with their changing needs.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the service provided, which met their specific needs. Staff told us providing a service to meet people’s specific needs was something they were proud to do. This approach was reflected in the care records we reviewed. Comments from people included “My carers are great, the care is great” and “[Relative’s] team are really, really good, they care for [relative] and all aspects of their health condition”.

People chose their own items for food shopping and staff supported people to cook. Where people had pre-ordered food, staff always asked if they wanted the same when planning a menu or if they would like to try something different. This was then passed to relatives who were responsible for ordering pre-packaged meals. One member of staff told us: “I like to see how [people] like and want things to be done.”

Where people’s needs changed, staff escalated concerns to the provider who ensured referrals to partnership organisations were made. For example, a person’s mobility had declined, and the provider had proactively organised a new assessment of needs. They had supported a referral to the occupational therapy team by including recommendations for specialist adaptations for equipment such as grab rails and equipment suitable for the individual’s needs.

We were told “it’s great that staff know me and know my needs, and they report this back to managers, it means I do not have to worry about explaining why my needs are changing”. This enabled people to feel safe, respected and empowered in their own homes.

Staff spoke to us about how they supported people to make choices based on health conditions. For example, a person at risk of choking received support around choices of softer foods. This meant a person’s diet was tailored to their specific health requirements.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s diverse health and care needs and worked collaboratively with professionals to ensure continuity and flexibility in care.

Leaders and staff maintained open communication channels with GPs, occupational therapists, social workers and pharmacies, enabling timely interventions and coordinated support. One person told us “The service works well with other professionals to give me the care that I need when I need it”.

Relatives appreciated regular updates about carers through newsletters and scheduled calls from managers ensured where appropriate that relatives received care information. This was especially useful for relatives who did not see people regularly. People knew managers personally and looked forward to their regular visits. One person told us “I love it when the manager visits, it really adds a personal touch”.

Leaders gave examples of proactive contact with professionals when people’s needs changed. This included supporting an individual through an appeals process to attend the court of human rights and working closely with district nurses to arrange end of life care provision for a person.

This integrated approach meant people received joined-up care that supported choice, continuity and improved wellbeing.

The provider ensured people and their relatives had access to clear, timely and accessible information about their care and support.

Reviews were routinely completed with people, giving them opportunities to discuss their support and raise any concerns. The registered manager liaised with commissioners and stakeholders to ensure people received regular service reviews, and that any changes were communicated promptly.

To make information accessible, the provider had an easy-read complaints policy available for people. This explained how to raise issues in a format that was tailored to people’s needs. Staff confirmed that they explained any changes in care plans to people and their families, ensuring transparency and involvement in decision-making.

The provider used multiple communication methods to meet individual needs This included phone calls, printed materials, and digital updates. Relatives who lived far away were offered phone calls or in-person meetings to discuss care plans and their family member’s progress.

People told us they felt confident they could access information and any updates whenever needed, and leaders told us: “We always make sure people know what’s happening and why – it’s part of respecting their choices.” This proactive and inclusive approach meant people and families were well-informed, empowered to make decisions, and reassured about the quality and continuity of their care.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Leaders did not wait for formal feedback to ensure that they listened to people’s needs and took action to improve the quality of people’s lives. One person had told staff in conversation that they wished they could access the community with their loved one. Whilst this was not part of the care contract, leaders supported the person to source additional resources, including seizure-safe travel adaptations and emergency medication kits. They extended the care package to support these activities, and staff were also provided with specialist epilepsy training on managing seizures during transit to support. The person was actively involved in planning, choosing travel times and identifying trusted staff to accompany them.

The provider considered innovative ways to identify ways to support people to feedback on care. They recognised this was essential in continuous review of the quality of their service. In additional to traditional ways to feedback, such verbal feedback, surveys, and in person check-ins, the provider also introduced a secure online app where people and relatives could view their care plan and request changes easily.

People told us without exception that staff were very receptive and would know if they were unhappy with the care provided or their individual situations. People were confident that if they needed to talk to anyone, they could talk to the staff or managers. One person said: “We are encouraged to talk and feedback”. One person requested a review of their staff team. Managers were responsive and met with the person the same day to discuss a staffing structure which suited them.

The provider understood how important it was for people to be supported by those that mattered to them and that these people could offer important support and insights into a persons needs. Where people did not have any living relatives we saw the provider had engaged with people to appoint chosen family. This meant people had a voice and were offered support from people who they trusted.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Assessments covering the accessibility of the person’s home and whether any adaptations, equipment or referrals to occupational therapists were needed, had been completed.

People could choose who they wanted to support them for their care. If additional support was needed, the provider ensured staff were made available for this. For example, when a person’s needs increased, the provider ensured additional staffing was available. These adjustments meant the provider was ensuring an individual approach to ensure all people received a service that was holistic in its approach. The staffing roster was arranged flexibly to support people’s needs.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

For example, during an assessment of needs, the provider was told by a relative that “[person] thinks they can walk, but their mobility is limited and this affects their emotions”. The provider discussed the person’s mobility with the person and asked them what they missed most. The person told the provider that they missed their independence. The provider suggested supporting the person to go swimming twice a week. We were told by the person that this has improved their quality of life because “I can leave the house now and I’ve made friends with other people my age at the swimming pool”.

The provider ensured experiences of discrimination and inequality were listened to and acted on to improve care. For example, a clinician assessed a person as being at risk of choking and recommended a soft diet. However, the person spoke to staff about their preference to eat solid foods. In response, the provider supported the person to uphold their rights by supporting them to appeal to the Court of Human Rights. The court ruled that the person had capacity to make decisions about their diet.

Staff worked with the person to agree a shared plan: the person could eat their preferred foods, and carers would support with this but if choking began during a meal, the activity would stop immediately and be reviewed. This respectful approach meant the person’s autonomy was upheld while safeguarding their wellbeing through ongoing monitoring and open communication.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training and respected each person as an individual. People and their relatives were fully involved in the planning of people’s support and risk assessments and could make changes at any time they wished. For example, a person was becoming increasingly forgetful and confused. Managers developed a care plan which included consistent routines, memory aids, and the same staff in order to reduce distress. Relatives told us “This really had a [positive] impact on [relative] and enabled them to live in their own home for much longer as staff worked and adapted to [relatives] changes”.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Staff had received end of life training and training in courageous conversations.

People were supported to write their end-of-life care plans and staff engaged in difficult but necessary conversations with them. This meant staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future. This included whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they wished to remain at home. Comments included “without the provider looking after [relative] we would never have been able to manage, they supported with end of life so well that [relative] had a great quality of life, had support and comfort from staff that knew them well”.

Where appropriate, decisions were recorded in ReSPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment). The ReSPECT form ensures people’s wishes are followed should they become ill or have to go to hospital. This information was also recorded in people’s care plans.

For people who were unwell with deteriorating health needs, the provider had enabled people to speak to their GP about resuscitation. As a result, some people had a “Do Not Attempt Resuscitation” (DNAR) order in place.

Once consent from people had been sought, where appropriate all future planning documents had been shared with relatives and chosen family members once consent from people had been sought. This meant care was consistent, person-centred, dignified and helped to reduce uncertainty during critical situations.

The provider had records of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) documentation on file. This meant relatives or chosen family could decide on medical treatment and care for people. We saw records showed staff had spoken to people about their funeral plans including music they wanted played and their choice of burial or cremation.