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

Responsive - this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

However, the provider was previously in breach of regulation in relation to how they managed and dealt with complaints they received about their services. This was 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. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received consistently good, person-centred care and support from a core team of competent staff who were familiar with their needs, preferences and daily routines. A member of staff told us, “This approach to planning the staff duty rota ensures people receive continuity of care from the same group of staff who know the individual they always support. This ensures each person’s needs are met with respect and understanding.”

The provider had introduced a new electronic care planning system that contained sufficiently detailed and up to date personalised information about people’s unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Staff demonstrated good awareness of the individual needs and preferences of each person they supported and were familiar with the term ‘person-centred’ and what this meant. The provider understood the diverse personal, health and social care needs and wishes of people they supported and their local communities, and ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, and ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us staff understood their care needs and that they worked well with multiple external health and social care professionals to consistently meet those needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider ensured people were given information in a way they could understand. Information about people’s communication needs, and preferences had been identified and was included in their care plan. Managers and staff were aware of their responsibility to meet peoples communication needs and to make information that was important to them easily accessible and understandable. A member of staff told us, “We ensure people we support know exactly what’s going on by providing them with all the relevant information they need in an accessible way. We use simple language, visual aids, and involve family members when needed.” Another member of staff added, “We use photo cards to explain the options people have to choose what they wear, eat and do, so it’s easier for them to understand and make informed choices.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider had made improvements since our last inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations.

The providers complaints policy was now available in different formats to meet peoples preferred communication requirements. The policy detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service and the process for dealing with them. Informal concerns and formal complaints raised were logged, investigated and appropriate actions identified and taken to improve the service. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they had regular opportunities to speak to managers and staff and they felt listened too and involved in making decisions about the care and support they received. One person said, “I like pizza, so staff are going to help me make pizza for my lunch today.” A relative added, “It used to be the case that it wasn’t always easy to share feedback about my [family members] care, but after we raised this as an issue the provider took our criticism seriously and now hold family meetings every 2 months. This has really helped improved communication between us and the managers and staff at Venus Healthcare.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had made improvements to social activities people could chose to participate in as we had discussed with the managers at their last assessment. People now had sufficient opportunities to engage in meaningful activities within their home and the wider community that reflected their social interests and wishes. Daily activity programmes were in place for each person, which reflected their social interests and activities they had expressed a wish to participate in. This included riding a bike, walking in the park, eating out, car rides and staying overnight with family members. During our assessment we observed staff supporting people to access the wide community. The managers also told us people were supported to continue their education and to study courses remotely for which they had been awarded certificates for their academic achievements. A member of staff told us, “We have introduced a variety of new activities and encourage people to choose what they would like to do by helping them explore their social interests.” Another member of staff added, “There’s more focus these days on enhancing the daily activities of the individuals we support, so people have a more active social life. We strongly believe this approach helps create a positive and fulfilling environment where service users can thrive.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

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. Peoples beliefs and preferences were respected. Staff had received equality and diversity training and understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, and to receive care and support that met their specific needs. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s spiritual and cultural needs. Staff were aware of people’s diverse spiritual and cultural needs and wishes and knew how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People did not require any support with end of life care at the time of our assessment. People and people important to them had not been actively encouraged or supported to make decisions about their end of life wishes. Peoples care plans had a section where individuals end of life care and support needs and wishes could be recorded. If people and their families did not want to discuss their end of life care needs and wishes the provided showed us evidence this decision was still recorded in their or family members care plan.