Honor Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
 

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because, while they discussed people’s needs with relatives, this did not always result in people’s care plans, risk assessments and daily care records containing clear and adequate information.

Care plans did not always contain relevant information about people’s health, care, wellbeing or communication needs to enable them to receive care or treatment which provided good outcomes. For example, where people had identified health, communication and behavioural needs, they did not always have a care plan or assessment which documented these conditions, and where they did, they often failed to adequately provide guidance to staff on how they could support people to meet these needs. Care plans were not reviewed on a regular basis nor effectively audited by the provider to ensure they contained relevant, accurate and detailed information regarding people’s needs. This meant people were at risk of their needs not being clearly known and delivered by staff.

The provider described the care planning process during the transition of people receiving support from the service, which included people and relatives being involved in assessments and this information being used to develop people’s care plans. People and relatives told us they were involved in their care planning.
 

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment, in a way which was important to them.

Care records were not always in-line with evidence-based good practice guidance. The information within people’s care plans made some reference to being based on the direction and guidance from external healthcare professionals, and where safety incidents occurred which might have justified assessment and guidance from external healthcare professionals, this support was not always sought. This meant people were at risk of their care and treatment not being delivered to them in ways which reflected their identified needs.

Staff understood people’s preferences, including how they asked for food and drinks, and relatives said staff supported their relation to access amenities within their communities.
 

The provider did not always work well across teams to support people.

Staff meetings did not take place on a regular basis and the provider failed to take records of the meetings that had occurred. Most staff and relatives told us they had no concerns with the communication they have with the provider.

While the service worked in consultation with people’s social workers, there was limited other evidence which demonstrated multidisciplinary working.
 

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s care records did not always contain relevant information needed to ensure people could be supported to positively manage their health and wellbeing. We found relevant
guidance relating to people’s health conditions and needs was sometimes not in place or, where it was in place, did not contain the guidance staff needed so they could support people to live healthy lives. This meant people were at risk of their health needs not always being met.

Where this was possible, people were supported to manage aspects of their own health and wellbeing needs. Staff had received most training relevant to people’s health needs, and the staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of people’s health needs. For example, staff told us how they supported people with their communication needs which mitigated risks associated with this. This was supported by the feedback we received from people and relatives.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent.

People’s care records were not regularly and effectively monitored and reviewed by the provider. With an absence of effective care plan and safety events audits, the provider was unaware of the concerns we identified regarding the lack of relevant information in people’s care records and people’s care and health outcomes. This meant there was a risk the care and treatment people received from staff may not always meet their needs.

However, people’s care was monitored by the provider undertaking visits of people’s homes to assess staff practice and to seek people’s and relative’s feedback.
 

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider did not always consider the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when supporting people. The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When people lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not in place for people who were judged as lacking capacity. Where people deemed as lacking capacitywere subjected to restrictions which amounted to a deprivation of their liberty, legal authorisations for these restrictions had not been sought from the provider. Where people deemed as having capacity were subjected to restrictions, the reasons for this were not always known by people nor documented within their care plans. This meant people were at risk of their human rights not being respected.

Staff training records showed staff received MCA training; and people and relative feedback demonstrated staff had a basic awareness of the principles of the MCA.