Honor Care Limited

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 good. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 57 (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 care records provided person-centred information about people’s needs.

Care plans and daily care records did not always provide person-centred information about people’s needs. For example, where information was documented, it did not always contain sufficient guidance to ensure people’s individualised needs could be met. Care plans were not regularly reviewed with people and relatives to ensure they remained current and reflected changing needs and preferences. When this was discussed with leaders, there was a limited awareness of the statutory guidance, ‘Right support, right care, right culture’, which supports the importance of people’s care being personalised.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s individual needs, which was supported by people and relative feedback. Leaders sought the views of people and relatives regarding the care people received through satisfaction calls.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up or supportive of continuity.

Processes were not in place to ensure people’s care records contained relevant and detailed information about people’s needs. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

Safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm were not appropriately reported to stakeholders such as the local authority safeguarding team and CQC, where doing so would have enabled greater joined-up working and greater understanding and learning. The provider’s failure to not adequately report notifiable safety events to others meant people were at risk of their risks and needs not being known and investigated.

People and relatives told us staff understood the health and care needs of the people they supported.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans did not always include clear and adequate information about people’s specific communication needs. For example, a person’s care plan documented they communicated in a particular way, only to subsequently state they communicated in another way. In both cases, the care plan failed to detail information which provided examples of what these communication approaches might include. This meant people were at risk of their communication needs not being adequately catered for by the provider.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s communication needs, and relatives told us they felt this was the case as well.
 

The provider did not always involve people in decisions about their care.

Once people’s care plans had been developed, people and relatives were not involved in ensuring they were regularly reviewed to contain accurate, updated and person-centred information. When we spoke to 1 person about the contents of their care plan we reviewed, they told us how the plan contained information about them which had not been relevant for a significant period of time, which staff confirmed was the case. The person stated they would like to have access to their care plan but did not know where this was.

A complaints procedure was in place, and most staff, people and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and had no concerns they would be dealt with.

The provider sought the views of people and relatives through observation spot-checks and satisfaction telephone calls.
 

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

Records showed and people and relatives told us people received support at agreed times. People and relatives explained staff were responsive to people’s needs. For example, people with reduced mobility needs were supported to safely mobilise by staff providing walking aids and assistance to move safely around their homes.

While people’s care records made only some reference to how people’s care had been informed by access to healthcare professionals, and they were not reviewed nor effectively audited to promote care remaining appropriate and responsive, people and relatives told us how staff worked flexibly around people’s routines and health needs to ensure timely access to care.
 

Staff listened were aware of the people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

An equality and diversity policy was in place and staff had received equality and diversity training, which meant the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people, so they had comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health condition, communication needs, or background. For example, staff provided additional
mobility support so people could access activities within their wider community, while others received adapted communication support to daily decision-making.

People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told us
staff treated people fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstratingequity in both experiences and outcomes.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

While people were not in receipt of end-of-life care at the time of the assessment, people’s care plans mostly did not include information on the longer-term wishes and preferences which could be important to them.

The provider acknowledged this information had not been captured and stated their intention to address the situation by reviewing people’s care plans with them and / or their relatives.