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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

However, the provider was previously in breach of regulations in relation to governance. This was because the provider did not always operate their oversight and scrutiny systems effectively provider operated their governance system which had failed to pick up and/or address a number of issues we identified at their last assessment.

Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff were supported by managers to deliver consistently safe, person-centred care and support to people in line with the provider’s vision and values for the service. Systems and processes had been designed in line with the vision and values and focused on people and meeting their individual needs. They had a clear vision for the service and told us they routinely used individual and group meetings to remind staff about the provider’s underlying core values and principles. Feedback from people and relatives indicated there was a good culture within the service. We reviewed some compliments the provider had received praising the service for the quality of care they provided their family members.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had a new manager in post who has applied to be registered with us. The feedback we received from people about how the service was managed was positive. Relatives told us managers were approachable and transparent. One remarked, “The service continues to be well-managed.”

Staff were equally complimentary about the leadership approach of the managers and team leaders who they consistently described as professional, accessible and approachable. A member of staff told us, “The service is well-managed. We have a clear structure in place with regular communication between staff, team leaders, and managers. I also feel supported by the managers and my team mates. They are always accessible and provide the guidance and assistance needed to carry out our roles effectively.”

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had made improvements since our last assessment and we found they were no longer in breach of regulations. For example, they had fully actioned the improvement plan they had developed after our last assessment which addressed all the issues of concern we identified at that time. This had included improving how they identified, managed and monitored risk, managed and dealt with formal complaints and concerns, and notified the CQC in a timely manner about incidents involving the people they supported. The managers understood their responsibilities in relation to their regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. Our records indicated appropriate and timely notifications were being received by the CQC from this provider.

The overall quality and safety of the service people received was now effectively monitored by the managers. Audits and checks were regularly conducted by managers and team leaders. Outcomes from them were routinely analysed to identify issues, make any changes as and when needed and support staff to improve their working practices. In addition, when lessons needed to be learnt the provider developed action plans to improve the service they provided people. The managers demonstrated a good understanding of their governance roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring and managing the quality and safety of the service they provided. A member of staff told us, “The management team ensures that all care plans are kept up-to-date, risks are regularly reviewed, and appropriate staff training is provided. Regular meetings, audits, and reviews are conducted to maintain high standards of care and ensure that service users’ needs are consistently met.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The managers understood the importance of having a fair and inclusive workplace for all staff. Staff were provided support through relevant training and supervision to inform their knowledge and understanding of equality and diversity. Staff were positive about the leadership approach of the managers and senior staff team who they said treated them fairly. Staff told us there views were respected by their leaders and they felt like valued members of the team. A member of staff remarked, “I do feel very supported and valued by all the managers and the core staff team I work in.”

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had made improvements since our last assessment and we found they were no longer in breach of regulations. For example, they had fully actioned the improvement plan they had developed after our last assessment which addressed all the issues of concern we identified at that time. This had included improving how they identified, managed and monitored risk, managed and dealt with formal complaints and concerns, and notified the CQC in a timely manner about incidents involving the people they supported. The managers understood their responsibilities in relation to their regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents. Our records indicated appropriate and timely notifications were being received by the CQC from this provider.

The overall quality and safety of the service people received was now effectively monitored by the managers. Audits and checks were regularly conducted by managers and team leaders. Outcomes from them were routinely analysed to identify issues, make any changes as and when needed and support staff to improve their working practices. In addition, when lessons needed to be learnt the provider developed action plans to improve the service they provided people. The managers demonstrated a good understanding of their governance roles and responsibilities in relation to assessing, monitoring and managing the quality and safety of the service they provided. A member of staff told us, “The management team ensures that all care plans are kept up-to-date, risks are regularly reviewed, and appropriate staff training is provided. Regular meetings, audits, and reviews are conducted to maintain high standards of care and ensure that service users’ needs are consistently met.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Managers and staff told us they worked closely with various external health and social care professionals and bodies who they regularly consulted and welcomed their views and advice. A manager remarked, “We do work closely with various external care professionals including, social workers, GPs, district nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, speech and language therapists and ophthalmologists. This helps us understand and manage potential risks people we support face. We always follow the advice and recommendations these professionals share with us.”

The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Managers recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure people using the service received good quality, safe care and support. Audits and checks managers and team leaders regularly conducted were routinely analysed to identify performance shortfalls and learn lessons, so the service could continuously improve. Staff confirmed information about any lessons learnt were always shared with them during regular meetings with the managers and team leaders. A member of staff told us, “There is a focus on continuous improvement at the service to ensure the best outcomes for those we support.” Another added, “We have a weekly incident review meeting where we go over incidents and work on strategies to improve care and prevent similar situations in the future.”

The provider had made improvements since our last assessment. This included several people moving from their previous home in the last 6 months to live in more spacious accommodation in a less built up and busy residential area of London. This meant they now had safer access to a wider variety of local community facilities, such as parks, shops and places to eat out. These improvements had achieved positive outcomes and enhanced people’s quality of life and reflected people’s expressed social activity choices and preferences.