CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Venetia House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing and recruitment checks were found to be safe, risks were assessed and reviewed, and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care and support achieved good outcomes. Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act principles, supported people's nutrition and healthcare, and had received training and supervision.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs, preferences and communication styles. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and access to the community.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management team had made improvements and created a more positive culture, but new systems were not yet fully embedded. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection, and some environmental and recording improvements were still underway.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and some improvement work was still not fully embedded.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous rating of Requires Improvement and breaches of regulations. Inspectors visited on 1 and 2 August 2023, spoke with 7 people and 8 staff, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files and audits.
Inspectors found the home safe, effective, caring and responsive. People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, and staff supported people with choice, privacy, independence, communication, activities and healthcare.
The Well-led rating remained Requires Improvement. New systems had been introduced, but they were not yet fully embedded. The home was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection, although inspectors said they would check progress again.
Safe recruitment and staffing
Recruitment files showed the required checks had been completed. Inspectors also found enough staff on duty, with minimal use of agency staff.
“Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment files were reviewed and demonstrated robust recruitment checks had been completed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's choices, history, needs and risks. People were supported to make daily choices and remain independent.
“Care plans provided detailed guidance for staff on how to meet people's personalised choices.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive and compassionate interactions. Staff protected people's dignity and privacy, including during personal care.
“Interactions between people and staff were positive and compassionate.” from the report
Choice and community life
People chose meals, activities, outings and how their rooms were decorated. They were supported to go to places such as shops, pubs and a football stadium.
“People were encouraged to exercise choice and control in their daily lives.” from the report
Leadership arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. An application had been submitted and was being assessed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Improvement work not fully embedded
needs fixingNew systems and processes had been introduced, but inspectors could not yet be sure they were working consistently. Environmental work was still underway.
“New systems and processes had been implemented. However, these were not yet fully embedded.” from the report
Emergency evacuation records
needs fixingPersonal emergency evacuation plans contained useful information, but the scoring system made it difficult for staff to see quickly whether someone was high or low risk.
“It was not easy for staff to identify if a person was high risk or low risk at a glance as the scoring system was inconsistent.” from the report
Best-interest decisions
minorBest-interest decisions had been completed, but inspectors recommended adding more detail where possible.
“We recommend the provider consider adding more detail to best interest decisions where possible.” from the report
- 01What is the current progress of the application to register the care manager?
- 02Which improvement work was still underway at the inspection, and what has now been completed?
- 03How have the personal emergency evacuation plans been changed so staff can clearly see each person's level of risk?
- 04How are you checking that the new management and quality systems are now fully embedded?
- 05How will you add more detail to best-interest decisions where this is needed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous inspection identified breaches, and inspectors reviewed all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Venetia House is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and some important improvements, but legal, recruitment and management problems remain.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with people and staff, reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in Special Measures. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good infection control, person-centred care records and kind staff who knew people well.
However, staff recruitment was not always safe. The home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act, and its checks and audits did not identify all problems. The home was still in breach of Regulations 11, 17 and 19, and warning notices were issued for Regulations 17 and 19.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were sufficient, including for people who needed staff with them at all times.
“There were enough staff to support people at the service. People who always needed a staff member with them, were not left unsupported.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and individual choices.
“People were supported by caring, friendly staff who knew their needs well.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were regularly supported with hobbies and interests. Activities were planned but could change according to people's wishes.
“People were regularly engaged in meaningful hobbies and interests.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
Care plans, staff morale and relationships with health and social care professionals had improved. The manager acted quickly when inspectors raised issues.
“During the course of the inspection, the registered manager was quick to adapt and put things in place when any concerns were identified to them.” from the report
Unsafe recruitment checks
seriousSome references were from relatives or former colleagues rather than independent managers. Employment histories also had gaps, so the provider could not be assured about staff suitability.
“Staff had not always been recruited safely. We reviewed the recruitment files of 3 staff who had been recruited since the last inspection.” from the report
Consent and legal safeguards
seriousThe provider could not explain whether conditions on one person's DoLS authorisation had been met. Some best-interest records did not show who attended or include meeting notes.
“The provider continued to fail to have full oversight of the DoLS process as they were unable to inform the inspectors during the inspection about whether the conditions on one person's DoLS had been met.” from the report
Training and staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff could not explain safeguarding or the Mental Capacity Act despite having training. Two staff had not completed autism training, and supervision was not always completed as planned.
“Training was not always effective. As reported above regarding the MCA and within the 'safe' section on safeguarding, the content of the training was not always recalled by staff.” from the report
Some care details were missing
needs fixingSome nutrition and hydration plans lacked detail. Specific distraction techniques and arrangements for people sharing rooms were not always clearly recorded.
“Care plans were generally person-centred and detailed, however where distraction techniques were listed as needing to be used, the specific techniques for that individual were not always listed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure all staff references are independent and employment histories are complete?
- 02How do you now check that DoLS conditions are being met and that best-interest decisions include everyone who should be consulted?
- 03How are you checking that staff understand safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act and autism support in practice?
- 04How do your audits now identify gaps in nutrition, hydration, medicines and staff competency records?
- 05What action has been taken to improve accessible information, personal distraction techniques and support for people sharing rooms?
This was an unannounced two-day follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, following the previous Inadequate rating and Special Measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Venetia House
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2023Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2023InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2022.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.