Honor Care Limited

At the time of the inspection, the domiciliary care service was supporting 31 people with their personal care needs.

We found the provider to be in breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward[JS1].

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We found there was limited awareness and regard for ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance. For example, the provider demonstrated limited awareness of the guidance, and people’s care records did not always make reference to principles which underpin the guidance.

Systems for managing and reporting safety events were not always in place. Care plans did not always provide clear, detailed and person-centred information about people’s needs and preferences. Care records were not reviewed on a regular basis.

There was little consideration of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which included people judged to be lacking capacity regarding their care arrangements not having decision-specific mental capacity assessments in place. People judged as having capacity were subjected to restrictions without assessments and best interests decisions.

Staff recruitment and training was not always adequate. Staff meetings did not take place on a regular basis. Governance arrangements were not always robust or effective.

People received effective transitions to the service. Relevant policies and procedures were in place. There was a process to report concerns and we saw evidence people, relatives and staff were confident these would be taken seriously. People and relatives felt the care people received was safe. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s needs. People and relative views were obtained through satisfaction telephone calls. The provider had considered workforce wellbeing and inclusion. Staff received regular supervisions. Spot-checks were undertaken to observe staff practice.