You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 20 March 2018

This announced inspection took place on the 1, 2, 6 and 7 February 2018. Honeydew Healthcare Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to both adults and children with a variety of complex needs, including people living with dementia, physical and sensory difficulties and autism. At the time of our inspection, the service was supporting four people.

The provider was also the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The provider was on a leave of absence at the time of the inspection and the service was being managed by the deputy manager and care co-ordinator; the provider was available via telephone.

People received care from staff that knew them and who were friendly, kind, caring; and passionate about providing the care and support people needed and wanted to enable them to stay in their own homes.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide the care and support people needed and were supported by a provider who was visible and approachable, receptive to ideas and committed to providing a high standard of care.

People’s needs were assessed prior to coming to the service and person-centred care plans were in place and were kept under review. Risks to people had been identified and measures put in place to mitigate any risk. Care records contained detailed information to assist staff to provide care and support in an individualised manner that respected each person's individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required safely and at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.

Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Relatives told us that they felt their loved one was cared for safely in their own home. Staff understood their role in caring for people with limited or no capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider was closely involved in the day-to-day running of the service and continually monitored the quality of the service provided. Staff and relatives were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to and acted on.

Inspection areas



Updated 20 March 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities to ensure people were kept safe.

Risk assessments were in place and managed in a way which ensured people received safe support.

Safe recruitment practices were in place and staffing levels ensured that people’s care and support needs were safely met.



Updated 20 March 2018

The service was effective.

People received personalised care and support. Staff were trained to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people appropriately and in the way that they preferred.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals to ensure they received the care and support they needed.



Updated 20 March 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff that were compassionate, kind and committed to providing good care and support.

People were encouraged to make decisions about how their support was provided and their privacy and dignity was protected.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.



Updated 20 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon; care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred.

People were supported to engage in activities that reflected their culture and interests, and supported their physical and mental well-being.

People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint.



Updated 20 March 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an open and inclusive culture, which focussed on providing person-centred care.

The provider was committed to leading a service that supported people to live as independently as possible in their own home.

The provider effectively monitored the quality and safety of the service.