Venus Healthcare

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

People's dependency needs were assessed before they were offered a place at the supported living service which staff used to develop personalised care plans. Staff worked together to deliver and meet people’s needs and wishes in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People were supported to stay healthy and well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The care and support people received was routinely monitored to continuously improve it.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives and external health and social care professional’s told us their family members or clients dependency needs were thoroughly assessed before they were offered a place to start using this supported living service.

Healthcare professionals told us that people's needs were assessed by the provider before they began to use the service.

Staff told us they were given the time to read through people’s care plans which meant they could become familiar with their individual needs and preferences. They gave us examples about how they supported people in line with their wishes.

People, their relatives and external health and social care representatives were all invited to participate in the pre-admission assessment process. People's assessed dependency needs and wishes were then used to help develop personalised care plans.

People’s electronic care plans were personalised and contained detailed information about their unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Care plan reviews took place at regular intervals and as and when required if people’s needs and wishes changed. It was positively noted immediately after this inspection risk management and PBS plans for one person had been reviewed and updated to include new actions for staff to follow keep this person safe. People, and those important to them, were routinely invited to take part in making decisions and planning of their care.

Staff told us they followed guidance in care plans when supporting people.

We received mixed feedback from relatives and external health and social care professionals about how staff delivered care and support. For example, a relative said, “The failure of staff members to effectively manage my [family members] care needs is alarming. Basic tasks have been neglected, requiring family members to step in. The lack of responsiveness to these essential needs, warrants immediate improvement.” An external care professional remarked, “If it had not been for staff consistently following my clients care plan to meet their complex needs this placement could have broken down as it has in the past. The staff have done well.”

Managers and staff told us they regularly consulted with these external bodies and professionals and welcomed their views, advice, and best practice ideas.

External health and social care professionals told us the provider worked well with them to meet their client’s needs.

People’s electronic care plans were personalised and contained detailed information about their unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Care plan reviews took place at regular intervals and as and when required if people’s needs and wishes changed. It was positively noted immediate after this inspection risk management and PBS plans for one person had been reviewed and updated to include new actions for staff to follow keep this person safe. People, and those important to them, were routinely invited to take part in making decisions and planning of their care.

The provider worked in close partnership with various community-based health and social care professionals and agencies including, GPs, various community psychiatric nurses, behavioural support and learning disability teams, social workers and the relevant Local Authorities. This was underpinned by a policy of relevant information being shared with appropriate services within the community or elsewhere.

People were supported to stay healthy and well. Care plans detailed their health care needs and conditions and the action staff needed to take to keep people fit and well. Records showed staff ensured people routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had regular check-ups with a range of external medical and health care professionals. This included annual health checks, and access to screening and primary care service with GPs and psychiatric nurses.

External health and social care professionals told us the provider collaborated well with them to meet their client’s needs.

People using the service told us they had access to relevant health care professionals as required such as GP services if required.

Staff demonstrated good awareness of signs they had to look out for which could indicate people they supported with communication needs might have an emerging physical health care issue.

People using the service told us they had access to relevant health care professionals as required such as GP services if required.

The outcome of all the audits, monitoring checks and feedback the providers received from stakeholders were routinely analysed to identify issues, learn lessons and develop action plans to improve the service they provided people.

It was clear from feedback we received from managers and staff they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure they maintained high-quality, person-centred and safe care for people. The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored by managers and staff at both a provider and service level by conducting regular audits and checks, and obtaining stakeholder feedback. For example, managers and staff met daily to discuss any changes to people’s needs and the packages of care they received.

Managers and staff confirmed they had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and were aware of their duties and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS. Staff told us peoples care plans made it clear what decisions people could make for themselves.

People’s care records showed the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. For example, care plans clearly described what decisions people could make for themselves. There were processes in place where, if people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, the service would involve people’s relatives and professional representatives, to ensure decisions would be made in their best interests. We found a clear record of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) restrictions that had been authorised by the supervising body (the local authority) in people’s best interests.

People told us they consented to the care and support they received from staff at the service.