Venus Healthcare

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns in relation to the providers governance systems and how the service was managed. We identified issues with the providers lack of understanding of their legal obligation to always notify the CQC without delay about the occurrence of any incidents of abuse or allegations of abuse in relation to service users; and those reported to, or investigated by, the police. This placed people at risk of harm and represented a breach of Regulation 18 (Notification of other incidents) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Registration) Regulations 2009. We discussed this notification issue with the registered manager at the time of our inspection who accepted this failure. The registered manager took immediate action after our inspection to review their incident reporting systems to mitigate the risk of similar failures happening in the future and they sent us reports of incidents they had previously failed to do. In addition, we found concerns about the providers governance systems which were not always operated effectively. This was because they had failed to pick up and/or address a number of issues we identified during this inspection. This placed people at risk of harm and represented a breach of regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. The managers had the skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively. The provider’s culture was positive, open, and honest, with leadership and management that was clearly identifiable and transparent. The provider worked collaboratively with external health and social care agencies and professionals to plan and deliver people’s packages of care.

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.

Individual staff supervision and group team meetings were used by the provider to remind staff about their organisations underlying core values and principles.

Managers and staff told us they aimed to give people they supported good care all the time. Everyone worked together to do this. The managers had a clear vision for the service and told us they routinely used individual supervision and group team meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles.

The managers had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service, which they did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us the supported living service was managed well by the managers and senior staff team. They said they received all the support they needed from their line managers. A member of staff remarked, “This is a good place to work. The managers are very approachable and supportive.”

Managers and staff told us the provider had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place. This gave staff details about how to raise concerns about poor practice and the steps available to them to resolve these.

Managers told us members of the providers management and the positive behavioural support team would always meet with staff and support them to debrief if they had been involved in managing an incident where a person they supported expressed distress.

Staff told us managers treated them well and they felt they got all the support and guidance they needed from them.

The provider had not always notified all the relevant external agencies, such as the CQC and local authority, about the occurrence of significant incidents involving people using the service in a timely manner. These incidents included several safeguarding and police incidents involving people using the service. An external care professional told us, “Inconsistent reporting to the local authority around incident and safeguarding concerns has been a problem with this provider.” The CQC and other relevant parties must be notified without delay about such occurrences, so where needed, appropriate follow-up action can be taken. The providers governance framework did not ensure they continuously learnt and improved, and that risks were always understood and well-managed. The provider had governance and monitoring systems in place, but these were not always operated effectively. This was because these systems had failed to pick up and/or take appropriate action to address a number of issues we identified at our inspection including, how the provider managed risk, complaints and significant incident reporting.

The registered manager acknowledged they needed to improve how they kept all the relevant external agencies informed about significant incidents. They told us steps had been taken to update their incident reporting processes involving the police, local safeguarding teams and the CQC.

People told us they received ongoing support from various external health and social care professionals who represented them.

We discussed with the registered manager recent incidents involving one person using the service who had been placed at risk of serious harm when they had become distressed whilst accessing the wider community. They told us they were working closely with the local authority and had made multiple referrals to various external bodies including, the local positive behavioural support, learning disability and mental health care teams. The provider had sought the advice of these external professional bodies to see what lessons could be learnt and action they could take to prevent and/or minimise the risks associated with this person becoming distressed and accessing the wider community.

External health and social care professional’s told us the provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with them, sharing information and learning together. One external professional said, “The provider welcomes feedback and listens to our professional advice, and are willing to collaborate with us.” Another added, “Venus Healthcare has attended all the meetings arranged by the local authority to discuss all the issues raised about them including, various safeguarding and provider concern meetings.”

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

They regularly reviewed and analysed accidents and incidents to reduce the possibility of reoccurrence.

Managers and staff told us they kept learning and making the service better when things went wrong.