Honeydew Healthcare Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Leaders had embedded systems that ensured lessons from incidents were not only identified but shared widely across the organisation. For example, following any event, managers completed a lessons-learned exercise and produced concise ‘key points’ documents for staff. These documents summarised best practice and were distributed within weekly summary meetings, ensuring knowledge gaps were addressed promptly and effectively.

Staff were actively encouraged to reflect on practice and to confidently escalate concerns. This was reinforced through scenario-based learning and regular competency checks, which helped staff develop and maintain confidence in managing complex situations such as safeguarding and emergency escalation.

Leaders invested time in reviewing external best practice guidance provided by the National Institute of Care Excellence (NICE) for medicines management and advanced care planning and allocated this as structured learning for staff. Leaders personalised this by ensuring learning was tailored to people they supported. This meant staff were confident in applying and embedding this best practice to their everyday work.

People and staff knew how to raise concerns outside of the management team. Of the 4 staff we spoke with, all told us what they would do to help prevent the development of a closed culture. For example, if staff witnessed unsafe practices when delivering care, they told us they would raise a concern with their line manager. Comments included: “We look at how staff deliver care and even family members too.” Staff knew who to contact outside of the organisation in the event of identified concerns not being effectively addressed by leaders.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Wherever possible, individuals were supported to review their own care plans and contribute to the development of their end-of-life planning documents. When this was not possible family members or chosen representatives provided input. These care planning documents enabled healthcare staff to gain a thorough understanding of each person’s needs, helping to ensure continuity and consistency in care delivery.

For people who had frequent hospital visits, care planning documents demonstrated a joined up working approach. For example, collaborative planning showed the provider had shared a person’s digital records with the hospital once people had been asked for their consent. This meant all relevant professionals were able to work together to implement a discharge plan for the person.

The provider thought about how people would feel and what support they would need to move between providers. Relatives were regularly invited to meet the provider before, during and after their family member moved to the service. The provider ensured effective needs assessments had taken place to ensure people would receive care tailored to their individual needs.

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People told us they felt safe in their home and staff helped them stay safe. Of the four staff we spoke with, all informed us they understood what safeguarding meant. Staff talked about examples of how to keep people safe when providing care. All staff spoke confidently about recognising signs of abuse and how they would support people to stay safe.

Staff received safeguarding training and records demonstrated when they needed to complete refresher training. Safeguarding was part of the provider’s team meeting agenda, and staff were encouraged to discuss examples of safeguarding case studies. This meant there was effective oversight of training compliance.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been assessed and action taken to manage those risks. For example, people at risk of choking had a support plan and risk assessment in place. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks and ensured care plans were updated regularly with people when their needs changed. There were detailed and individualised risk assessments for a person whose home contained trip hazards and limited space.

Another person experienced regular changes to their physical health and these changes were identified and assessed frequently to enhance the person’s safety.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider assessed the home for risks and took action to ensure people, staff and visitors remained safe. People had individualised environmental risk assessments which detailed hazards in the home and how to safely support people in the event of an emergency. These risk assessments noted what hazards to look out for in the future, as people’s needs changed.

Another person shared they were worried about experiencing falls. Leaders ensured they met with the person to reassure them and to offer additional technology-based safeguards such as a call system and an emergency alarm.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of environmental safety and were trained to identify and escalate risks promptly. Leaders reinforced this through regular competency checks and scenario-based learning sessions, ensuring staff could respond effectively to emergencies. This meant environmental safety was embedded into the way staff worked within people’s homes.

This proactive, person-centred approach to environmental safety, combined with innovative use of technology and collaborative working with professionals, meant people consistently experienced a safe, supportive, and enabling environment.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People told us they received consistent staff and that they had built positive relationships with them. People told us late visits were rare. Comments included “They have only ever been late 2 or 3 times in the past 3 to 4 years” and “I will get a call if a carer is running late but it hardly ever happens”. Leaders informed us they stepped in when there was staff sickness, so visits did not get cancelled. Managers told us they did not use agency staff to cover shortfalls because they did not want people to be supported by unfamiliar agency staff and by staff who did not know them. This meant that the provider ensured continuity in service for the people they supported and ensured people received support from staff they knew well. During the assessment we looked at the rota for the course of a 9-week period and found no missed or late visits.

Pre-employment checks had been completed for staff before starting work. New staff received an induction, including shadowing experienced staff. Staff told us they received regular training, supervision and an annual appraisal. This ensured a competent and safe workforce when supporting people.

Staff told us that leaders had sought additional training for them to be able to safely transport a person who had seizures while in vehicles. This training enabled the person to access the community and receive an empowered person-centred approach to their care.

Overseas staff had received migrant worker and cultural integration training. This training was personalised to each staff member’s cultural origin and set out practical ways in which care is expected to be delivered when working in the United Kingdom.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and told us they would raise anything with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and told us they had access to all the personal protective equipment they needed. We saw evidence of completed IPC audits, and staff spoke about the importance of maintaining hygiene standards.

People confirmed that staff helped them keep their homes clean. One person said, “They always help me tidy up and make sure everything is clean” and “Staff wash bedding and floors and are always dressed in PPE”. These statements reflected the provider’s commitment to maintaining a safe and hygienic environment.

Another person did not want staff to wear uniforms when supporting them. Managers assessed this risk from an infection perspective and ensured that staff wore their own clothes, but that regular sanitising took place.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning their medicines support, including when changes happened.

People told us staff provided good support for them to take their medicines. Staff had completed training in the safe management of medicines and leaders regularly observed their practice. Medicines audits and competency spot checks were completed to ensure staff knew how to dispense and administer medicines safely.

People were supported to have regular reviews of their medicines with their doctor. The provider had a tracker to document requests for medicines reviews. Changes in medicines were listed on the provider’s medication audits.

Leaders undertook monthly medication reviews of all people. These reviews contained analysis of patterns and trends from the previous calendar month. These trends were then discussed with staff and measures to support people to be compliant with medication were explored. For example, one person regularly told staff they would take their medication later. Concerned they would forget, staff discussed this trend and developed a way of supporting the person differently.

Medicines errors were appropriately recorded and escalated in line with the provider’s policies and procedures. Each person had a comprehensive medicines risk assessment, along with body maps for emollient application and clear guidelines to support safe administration. Medicine Administration Records (MAR) showed all prescribed medicines, including topical creams, were administered as required. This ensured people received the correct medicines at the right time, promoting safe care delivery.