• Care Home
  • Care home

Venetia House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

348 Aylestone Road, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE2 8BL (0116) 283 7080

Provided and run by:
Blue Star Care Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

1 August 2023

During a routine inspection

About the service

Venetia House is a residential care home providing personal care to 9 at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 10 people. The service provides support to people with long term mental health conditions, a learning disability and autistic people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Right Support: People were safe and protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were recruited safely. Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been robustly assessed. Care plans contained detail and guidance for staff on ways to reduce risks to people. Staff had received training which enabled them to support people in the most appropriate way.

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 policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We recommend the provider consider adding more detail to best interest decisions where possible.

Right Care: People were treated in a caring manner by the manager and staff team. People were encouraged to exercise choice and control in their daily lives. People received information in a way that was accessible to them.

Right Culture: The management team had developed a positive culture, which placed people at the centre of their care. People understood how to complain if they were unhappy with the care they received.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 16 May 2023) and there were breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Venetia House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

4 April 2023

During a routine inspection

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

Venetia House is a residential care home providing personal care to 8 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 10 people, this includes providing care and support for people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support

Staff received required training to ensure they followed best practice guidance; however staff could not always recall the training they had received, for example what safeguarding meant for the people they supported. This meant the training they had received may not always have been effective.

Staff had not always been recruited safely.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

Staff were attentive to people's needs. The registered manager monitored staff deployment and ensured enough staff were on duty.

People’s medicines were managed safely and there were effective systems to prevent and control infections.

Right Care

People's care records were person-centred, and their care was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People were supported by caring, friendly staff who knew their needs well.

Right Culture

Where feedback had been sought from questionnaires and meetings from staff and people, this had not always been analysed to learn lessons and make improvements to the service.

Audits were not always effective, as they failed to identify all the concerns we found at inspection.

People were supported by staff who shared a positive culture which provided them with good outcomes. The staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager understood their obligation under the duty of candour.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was inadequate (published 10 January 2023). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found some improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of some regulations. However, the provider still remained in breach of some regulations.

This service has been in Special Measures since 28 April 2022. During this inspection the provider demonstrated that improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

Why we inspected

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

The overall rating for the service has changed from inadequate to requires improvement based on the findings of this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe, effective, responsive and well-led sections of this full report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Venetia House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to the need for consent, governance, and recruitment of fit and proper persons at this inspection.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

11 July 2022

During a routine inspection

About the service

Venetia house is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 10 people. The service provides support to people with mental health and learning disability needs. At the time of our inspection there were seven people using the service. One of these people did not receive support with the regulated activity 'personal care'. Where a person does not receive support from the regulated activity, we do not include them within our inspection process.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Systems had not been put in place to investigate and improve the closed culture identified at the last inspection. Safeguarding incidents had not always been responded to appropriately. Incident records had not been reviewed in a timely way. Staff did not have clear guidance on how to support people’s individual needs. People were not safe from environmental risks (fire and legionella). Staff were not safely recruited to ensure they were of good character. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff to support people and staff were deployed effectively around the service.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The systems in the service did not support this practice. People were at risk of their hydration needs not being met. Peoples care plans and risk assessments did not always consider protected characteristics, as identified in the Equality Act 2010. People had been referred to external health professionals; however, there was unclear communication processes in the event of a hospital admission. Staff had received training on how to support people.

We observed staff and people had positive interactions. People told us that staff were caring. However, poor governance processes did not promote a caring culture at the service. People had shared bedrooms and the dignity and privacy of this arrangement had not been considered.

Care plans did not always give guidance on how to provide personalised care. For example, care plans did not describe people’s individual interests and routines. However, when we spoke to staff, they had good knowledge of people’s preferences. The manager advised that no complaints had been made. We saw no evidence that people were unhappy with their care. End of life care planning had been completed for one person, the manager planned to improve other end of life care plans.

The service was not well led. At the last inspection, we sent the provider warning notices. These warning notices explained our concerns with the service and gave them until April 2022 to make improvements. The new manager started in May 2022 and we saw limited evidence of actions taken before they started employment. The work the manager had begun to do was good quality. However, the work had not yet been embedded to improve the quality of care. There had been a provider level failure to improve the service before the new manager arrived. The provider advised they would consider ongoing management structures to further improve the service.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

Based on our review we found the service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.

Right support: The model of care did not maximise people's abilities. Care records did not always guide staff to provide suitable care. However, staff had received increased training since the last inspection.

Right care: Care was not always person centred or safe. People were not involved with feeding back about the care provided.

Right culture: Staff reported that improvements to the service were because of the new manager. The culture was reliant on the new manager rather than a whole provider system.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The service was last rated ‘inadequate’ in the safe, effective and well led domains. We decided to not provide an overall rating as the provider had only owned the service for a month and a half. The report was published on 27 April 2022.

After the last inspection, the provider also completed an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we reviewed this action plan and found it had been ineffective at improving the service.

Why we inspected

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

We also looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Venetia House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified breaches in relation to safeguarding, safe care and treatment, recruitment, consent and good governance.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response can be found at the end of the report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Special Measures

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service remains in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe, and there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

24 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Venetia house is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 10 people. The service mostly provides support to people with mental health and learning disability needs. At the time of our inspection there were nine people using the service. One of these people did not receive support with the regulated activity ‘personal care’. Where a person does not receive support from the regulated activity, we do not include them within our inspection process.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Systems at the service did not protect people from potential abuse. Incident records showed us that concerns were not always sufficiently investigated and safeguarding referrals were not always made in a timely way.

We were concerned about a closed culture at the service. Staff told us they were unwilling to speak to a CQC inspector (through fear of reprisals) so chose to email instead. We reported this concern to the provider, then received a whistle-blower that staff had again been discouraged from speaking to the CQC.

Care plans did not provide enough detail on how staff should manage people’s health needs. Staff were not trained in how to support people’s mental and physical health needs and had poor knowledge when asked. Incident records and daily notes were not always completed fully to ensure care could improve.

There were not enough staff to keep people safe from harm. People who received one to one care were often left unattended which resulted in harm to them. Staff were not always safely recruited to ensure they were skilled and of good character to support people at the service.

Medicines were stored appropriately. However, staff did not have clear guidance on how to administer ‘as required’ medicine. Used needles were not disposed of safely, putting staff at risk of a used needle injury.

Infection control practices were not safe, putting people at risk of COVID-19 transmission.

People’s needs were not assessed in line with current legislation and standards. People were not always supported to drink enough but were supported to eat enough. Staff had made some referrals to health professionals when people were unwell. However, professional guidance had not always been used to improve the quality of care.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The systems in the service did not support good practice. People had multiple restrictions on their daily living without capacity assessments in place.

The service had been operating under a new registered provider for a month and a half. The new provider did not currently provide a clear strategy to provide high quality care. The provider had not fully audited the service to see where improvements were needed. Where audits had occurred, these were ineffective at recognising issues. We raised concerns about the poor quality of care and timely action was not always taken in response to our concerns. We were assured after the inspection that an action plan was in place, and the required improvements would be made.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

Based on our review of key questions; safe, effective and well led; we found the service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.

Right support: The model of care did not maximise people's choice, control and independence. People had consented to certain care in care records but were observed to not be happy with the type of care provided to them. The care did not always maximise people's independence.

Right care: Care was not person centred. Staff did not always ensure people received suitable and effective support when they displayed behaviour that challenged staff. Restrictive practices were used, and these did not promote people's dignity and human rights. Training records showed staff were not always skilled to support people's care needs.

Right culture: The service did not have a good ethos. Staff reported that changes to the service from the new provider had not been made without consultation with themselves and people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The service was previously registered with CQC under another provider. The rating under the previous provider was requires improvement, report published on 3 September 2019. Due to the sale of this service to a new provider, it is considered a new legal entity for this inspection. The new provider had been registered with CQC for a month and a half at the time of this inspection.

Why we inspected

We had received concerns about the quality of the management team, unsafe medicine management and people’s freedoms being unlawfully restricted. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We completed a focused inspection into the safe, effective and well led domains.

The provider has only been registered with the Care Quality Commission for one and a half months. We therefore did not inspect all key questions and have provided an overall rating of 'inspected but not rated'

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively. This included checking the provider was meeting COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report. The provider has completed an action plan to assist with making the required improvements at the service.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified breaches in regulations in relation to safe care, staffing, consent and good governance. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We have requested an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect. We have also sent the provider warning notices for the breaches of regulation. The warning notices require improvements are made by a specified deadline.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.