Venus Healthcare

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns about how the provider operated their systems for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints they received. This is because the provider failed to maintain an accurate record of concerns and/or complaints they received, and the outcomes of complaints investigations they conducted in response, including any lessons learnt. This placed people at risk of harm and represents a breach of Regulation 16 (Receiving and acting on complaints) 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. Staff knew people well as individuals and knew what their preferences, likes and dislikes were. Staff ensured they communicated and shared information with people in a way they could easily understand. Care plans gave a good overview of people's support needs. People were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against. People were supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Staff supported people to plan for their end of their life 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.

Managers and staff told us care plans were personalised.

We observed staff provide people with the care and support they needed according to their individually assessed needs and wishes.

People told us staff treated them like individuals and knew what they liked to do and what they did not.

People’s electronic care plans were up to date, personalised and contained detailed information about their unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Staff were committed to reviewing people’s care and support on an ongoing basis as people’s needs and wishes changed. Reviews took place at regular intervals and as and when required if people’s needs and wishes changed. They included summaries of the support people had received since their last review and updates that needed to happen to ensure their care plan continued to reflect their current support needs and preferences.

People told us they received person-centred care from staff who were familiar with their individual care needs, preferences and daily routines.

Staff were familiar with the personalised care, preferences and daily routines of the people they regularly supported.

Most external health and social care professionals told us staff working for this provider were familiar with the personalised care, preferences and daily routines of their clients.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. Accessible information standard was being followed by the provider, with pictorial information available to enabler staff to communicate with and understand the needs and wishes of people they supported. Peoples communication needs and preferred method of communication was clearly highlighted in their personalised care and support plan.

Staff told us they had received person centred training in how to communicate and understand people’s preferred way of communicating. Staff were aware what specific gestures and signs used by one person meant they were communicating to them. The registered manager showed us a bedroom wall which was covered in various packaging from assorted items of food. They told us the person who occupied this space used the wall to point at the numerous empty food packaging to let staff know exactly what they would like to eat and drink.

People used a mixture of verbal communication, body language, gestures and sounds to express themselves. We observed staff use easy to understand photos and pictorial imagines to help a person with communication needs make informed decisions about what they would like to do each day. Staff gave this person the opportunity to respond at their own speed and use their preferred method of communication. Staff clearly understood and respected the choices this individual communicated to them about what they wanted and did not want to do that day, which included not having a shower or go out with staff at that time.

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. However, contrary to the providers complaints policy, no formal records were kept in relation to all the concerns and/or complaints they had received and how they had been managed including, the outcome of any investigations conducted in response and lessons learnt (if any).

People’s relatives told us concerns and complaints they raised about their family members care were not always managed well by the provider. For example, one relative said, “The provider isn’t listening to our concerns and never takes any action to address them. Our complaints are not dealt with by the provider.” Another relative added, “Despite previous attempts to raise concerns about my family members well-being, I was ignored. There needs to be a more responsive approach from the provider when it comes to addressing concerns raised by family members.”

The registered manager confirmed they had received concerns and complaints from people’s relatives about the standard of care and support they provided their family members.

People received care and support from staff according to their individual assessed needs and wishes. Records showed staff ensured people routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had regular check-ups with a range of community health and social care professionals.

People could access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Staff understood people had a right to receive the care and support that met their specific individual needs.

Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, to receive care and support that met their specific needs. Staff knew people well as individuals and knew what their preferences, likes and dislikes were. People’s care plans contained current information about their wishes in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met so that staff had access to information about how people should be supported with their specific needs. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training to help them make sure people were not subjected to discriminatory behaviours and practices. Managers and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s dietary needs and knew exactly what foods certain people they supported were not permitted to eat on spiritual/religious grounds. The registered manager told us they had matched staff with people they shared a language, religion and ethnicity with, so they were familiar with these individuals spiritual and cultural needs, preferences and beliefs.

People were provided with the care and support they wanted based on their specific needs. People were engaged and supported by staff to be included and have the same opportunity as others to receive the care and support of their choice.

People’s care plans contained current information about their wishes in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met so that staff had access to information about how people should be supported with their specific needs.

Managers and staff told us people’s wishes for their end of life care, including their spiritual and cultural wishes, were discussed, and recorded in their care plan. Staff had received end of life care training.

The provider had an end of life policy and people’s care plans had a section where their end of life care and support needs and wishes could be recorded. People also had ‘Do not resuscitate’ information recorded in their care plans, that staff were made aware of.

At the time of our inspection, no one was receiving end of life care.