We carried out a review of the data available to us about William and Patrica Venton Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about William and Patrica Venton Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
William and Patricia Venton Centre is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their homes. At the time of the inspection, they were supporting 19 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This involves help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe. They felt supported by staff that knew them and the risks to their wellbeing. People had robust assessments that informed staff how to mitigate risks. People received their medicines safely. Since the previous inspection, medicines documentation had significantly improved and staff confidence in completing medicines forms had increased. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and people saw the same staff every week. People told us staff were on time and that there was enough time to do everything they needed to. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and knew how and who to report concerns to.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Their training was regularly reviewed, and their competency assessed by management. They also received regular supervision to support them in their roles. People had access to health and social care professionals to promote their wellbeing. Their needs were assessed and reviewed. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were consistently met.
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.
People and their relative’s spoke highly about the quality of staff and the relationships they had built. One person said, “The care I receive is very good. They are kind people, very accommodating.” Another told us, “Mine have become my friends. They really care about me.” A relative said, “I know care is excellent. They are a help and source of comfort.” People’s privacy, dignity and independence was continually promoted and encouraged. People felt able to express their views and be involved in decisions about their own care.
People and their relatives told us that staff were very responsive to them and any changing needs. One relative said, “Staff are very responsive and understanding. If I need to know something, I run it past her main carer or office staff.” People told us their needs and preferences were consistently met and reviewed regularly. There had been no complaints since the previous inspection, however people and their relatives knew the process and who they could speak to with any concerns. No-one was receiving end of life care at the time of inspection, however staff were exploring people’s preferences in advance, to prepare for a time this support may be required.
People, their relatives and staff spoke highly about the new management team. One person said, “The support from Age Concern is very good. I only have to ring the office to get instant action. They are kind and helpful.” A relative said, “My relative is very fond of the home care manager. Management is really sharp now. They listen and chat and would I recommend them to anyone.”
Vast improvements had been made to the quality assurance systems and people’s records since the previous inspection. The registered manager had also joined forums to promote partnership working and continuous learning. The management team sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff to improve the service and have consistent oversight of people’s experiences.
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 24 December 2018) and there was a breach 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 was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At our last inspection in November 2017, the service was rated 'Requires Improvement'. During this inspection, we found some areas still required improvement. This is therefore the second inspection where the service has been rated Requires Improvement.
There was a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Shortfalls were found with record keeping which showed that current audit processes needed to be developed further. People’s care needs were not consistently reflected in their documentation. Issues identified during the previous inspection regarding medicines and care documentation, had not been improved. There were gaps in the training plan which had not been addressed despite being picked up by the registered manager.
At the previous inspection, the service was in breach of Regulation for a lack of medicines guidance and staff did not always understand the support people required with their medicines. At this inspection, although improvements had not been made to people’s documentation, staff had a good understanding of people’s support needs with regard to medicines. People and their relatives also told us they were happy with the support provided. We considered any possible negative impact on people to be low risk. However, medicines documentation was a continued area for improvement.
People told us they felt safe because staff knew them and their support needs well. Staff had been recruited safely and there were suitable numbers to meet people’s needs. Staff demonstrated a
good knowledge of how to safeguard people. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed, with actions taken to prevent reoccurrence. People had assessments that identified areas of risk and how to reduce these to safe levels. Staff also had a good understanding of infection control and how to prevent the spread of infection.
People were supported by staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff told us they received training, regular supervision and appraisals to support them in their roles. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the
least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People told us their nutritional needs were met and that if they required support to access health or social care professionals, the staff would always accommodate this.
People and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and attentive to their needs. Dignity, independence and privacy was promoted and encouraged. Continuity of care was achieved through familiar staff attending care calls on a daily basis.
People and their relatives felt staff were responsive to them and to any changing needs. They were confident that any concerns they had were dealt with in a timely and professional manner. Reviews of care were regularly completed with people and their relatives which ensured information about support needs was current. Staff had knowledge of people’s communication needs and respected their preferences.
People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. The registered manager had changed since the previous inspection. People felt there had been positive changes since they started and that the service was organised and well-led. Feedback was sought from people, their relatives and staff which was used to improve the service. A quality leadership group was developed by the management team to increase communication with others who had invested interest in how the service was run. The management were passionate about continually improving the service people received.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
This inspection was unannounced. The inspection took place on 6 October 201. At the time of this inspection eighteen people were receiving personal care from the DCA. The agency also provided domestic help to people in the local area.
The DCA had an appointed manager who had applied for registration with the CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Feedback that we received from people and their representatives about staff and the service was positive. Comments included, “They provide a very good service”, “I am just very very lucky with this DCA” and “My mother is very happy with staff.”
However, we found the provider had not ensured all aspects of the service were safe or that the quality of the service was monitored appropriately. Systems and records did not support the safe management of medicines. The recruitment practice did not include all checks needed to assure the provider that staff were suitable to undertake their allocated role. Management arrangements were not effective in all areas. Quality monitoring systems had not been established and followed to identify areas requiring improvement.
People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences. People were visited at times they wanted and stayed the expected amount of time. People were supported by regular staff who knew them well and who they felt comfortable and safe with.
There were enough staff employed with the right skills to meet people’s needs. Staff had a good understanding of the procedures to follow to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.
People’s needs and choices were assessed and known to staff. Care delivered was personalised to reflect their wishes and what was important to them. Where people’s needs changed staff were updated and health care professionals were involved as needed.
People were supported by staff who were caring and kind and took account of people’s privacy and dignity. Where required, staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink and maintain a healthy diet.
There was an induction programme in place and staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs. Staff were trained in the principles of the MCA and understood the importance of people giving their consent. The management team knew the correct procedures to follow when people lacked capacity to make decisions.
People were asked for their view on the service and support they received and were aware how to make a complaint. There was an open and positive culture at the service which had clear aims and objectives. Staff told us they felt supported, listened to and valued.
We found two breachs of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.