CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Mrs Jennifer Grego
Honeysuckle Cottage
The Street, Sutton, Norwich, NR12 9RF
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were not always protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments and care plans were not always accurate, medicines were not always given at the right times, and uncovered radiators created a possible burns risk.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to help calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to help calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care, activities and communication support were not always tailored to people's needs, preferences and wishes. Care plan reviews did not always involve people, relatives or professionals.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality checks did not reliably identify or address risks. The manager was overseeing multiple services, and the home was not consistently learning or improving.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Honeysuckle Cottage is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, medicines and care planning were not always managed safely or personally.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Two inspectors visited on two occasions, spoke with one person, a relative and five staff, and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home was not always safe. Risk assessments and care plans did not always reflect people's current needs. Uncovered radiators, unsafe medicine timings, unsuitable meals for people with diabetes and an unassessed choking risk were identified.
People were supported by staff who knew them, and the home was clean. However, activities, communication support, care reviews and end of life information were not always personalised. Management checks did not reliably find or fix these problems.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe and Responsive fell from Good at the previous inspection, while Well-led remained Requires Improvement. The other questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating.
Staff understood safeguarding
Staff had training and knew how to recognise and report abuse. Safeguarding concerns were recorded and referred to the local authority.
“Staff received training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding and how to recognise and report concerns.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Staff followed cleaning schedules and used protective equipment safely.
“Staff were using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff knew the people living at the home and could respond to their needs through verbal communication.
“We observed staff interacting with people using the service, staff knew the people well and were able to respond to their needs through verbal communication.” from the report
Complaints process
There was an accessible complaints process. Staff and relatives said they felt able to raise concerns.
“Staff and relatives said they felt confident in raising concerns.” from the report
Risks and medicines
seriousRisk assessments and care plans did not always contain enough accurate information. Time-specific medicines were not always given at the correct times, and people were at risk from other unassessed hazards.
“Medicines which were prescribed to be given 'time specific', were not always administered at the correct times.” from the report
Uncovered radiators
seriousAll radiators were uncovered. Inspectors were not satisfied that the home's touch checks were enough to prevent possible burns.
“People were not protected from avoidable harm. Radiators were uncovered and even though the service had 'touch tests' in place, we were concerned whether these were adequate to mitigate the risk of potential burns to people.” from the report
Care was not always personal
needs fixingActivities, goals, communication support and care reviews did not always reflect people's needs, wishes or preferences. Some goals had not been updated since April 2023.
“Activities were not always personalised and wishes were not explored.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality systems were in place but did not work effectively. They failed to identify or address concerns about risks, care plans, capacity assessments and medicines.
“The manager's reviews of care plans and risk management plans had not been effective and failed to identify and address concerns we had found during the inspection, this placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
- 01What has been done to cover or otherwise make the radiators safe, and how is this checked?
- 02How are time-specific medicines now recorded and checked to ensure they are given at the prescribed times?
- 03How have care plans and risk assessments been updated to reflect each person's current needs?
- 04What support is now available from dietitians or the Speech and Language Team for diabetes, weight management and choking risks?
- 05How are people and their relatives now involved in care reviews, goals, activities and communication planning?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; the other question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Honeysuckle Cottage
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Other services run by Mrs Jennifer Grego
5 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.