Archived: Honeymead Care Home

The provider sent us a copy of their action plan in November 2012. The purpose of this visit was to check that the necessary improvements had been made.

The acting manager told us that people’s care plans had been updated and now included the advice given by the speech and language therapist. Staff had received training in this area and understood what types of food and drink people could safely consumed and how they should be prepared.

During our visit we looked at ten care plans and saw that the advice of health professionals was being incorporated into people’s plans of care.

We saw from records that people’s fluid and food intake was recorded by care staff and checked by the qualified nursing staff. We saw evidence that concerns identified in this area were acted on and referrals made to relevant health professionals.

During our visit we found that systems had been put in place to ensure that the service provided, was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The provider was now meeting this essential standard.

People at risk of choking were not supported in such a way so as to ensure choking risks were minimised. Communication methods used in the home did not support staff to know about, understand and manage choking risks. People were given food and drinks that had not been prepared in accordance with professional healthcare advice. Advice on ensuring people’s posture was as upright as possible during eating and drinking to reduce the risk of choking was not being followed. We found that the provider potentially placed people's health and welfare at risk because care plans did not accurately reflect assessed needs.

We found that staff had completed the necessary safeguarding training and the home had addressed concerns which had arisen as a result of safeguarding incidents.

We found the provider had made sure that records of people's care accurately recorded the care that had been provided to the person and reflected their identified care needs.

Staff told us supervision and training had improved. We found that staff had received one to one supervision and all staff had had an appraisal. The provider had put in place improved arrangements for staff training and had addressed poor staff attendance at training sessions.