Honeybrook House

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

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. The overall rating for this key question remains good based on the findings of the last inspection. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Not all people who required assessment of their capacity to consent to specific decisions about care recieved these. However, people told us that staff listened to them and always sought their consent. One person told us, “They are listening to me.” During our assessment we observed staff offering people choices and asking about their opinion. People told us they were able to decide what to wear, what to eat and how to spend their time.

Staff supporting people had a good knowledge of Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). A member of staff told us, “Mental Capacity Act simply is a law that protects vulnerable people over the age of 16 around decision making against abuse or harm. It states that 'Every adult, whatever their disability, has the right to make their own decisions wherever possible.'” Staff told us they always supported people in the least restrictive way.

People can only be deprived of their liberty so that they can receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The authorisation procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA. We saw that the service locked the front door. Although not everyone living at the service was free to leave, there were DoLS in place in relation to the front door being locked. One person’s relatives raised concerns with us regarding the person’s choice to eat unhealthy foods. The provider told us that the person had full capacity to make that choice and the registered manager provided us with the best interest form for the person. However, neither the person nor their relatives had been invited to the best interest meeting. Information included in the person’s care plans contradicted information from the best interest form in terms of the person’s capacity. We asked the registered manager if the person was able to understand long-term effects of their diet and risks relating to this. The registered manager replied this had not been assessed. The registered provider failed to act in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice. This was a breach of regulation 11 (Need for consent) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.