CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Venville House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff. However, care records were not always updated when people's needs changed, and guidance for medicines given when required needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, and people had choices about their care. Inspectors found good support with food, drink and healthcare, although some staff training was still outstanding.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and needs, and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and responsive because staff knew people very well. People were supported with communication, family relationships, activities, outings and involvement in the local community.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager had day-to-day oversight and promoted a positive culture, but formal systems for auditing and improving quality were not robust. The provider remained in breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Overall rating Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines guidance, care records and quality monitoring still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 January 2023. The inspection team spoke with six people, six relatives, two staff members and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and other management records.
People said they felt safe and cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control and staff who knew people well. Care was described as kind, respectful and personalised. People had choices, access to healthcare and support to keep in touch with family and the local community.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good. Care records did not always reflect people's current needs, medicines guidance needed strengthening, and quality checks were not robust enough. The home had improved since the previous inspection but remained in breach of Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed caring interactions. People said staff respected their privacy, dignity and choices, and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“The staff are kind, they can anticipate my needs and always treat me with respect and dignity.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's needs, life histories, likes and dislikes. Relatives said the care was personal and attentive.
“The managers and staff's knowledge of people, their needs and how to meet these needs was exceptionally good.” from the report
Clean and well maintained
Inspectors found improvements in infection control, including paper towels and regular cleaning schedules. People and relatives said the home was clean.
“The cleanliness is spotless my sink is cleaned every day and hoovered three times a week its very homely” from the report
Good community and family links
People were supported to see family and friends, attend religious services and take part in outings and local events.
“People were encouraged and supported to access and be part of the local community.” from the report
Care records were not always current
needs fixingCare documentation did not always show people's current risks, needs or the actions staff should take. Records were not routinely reviewed after changes in need.
“Care documentation had not been routinely reviewed and updated following any change in need.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider did not have robust formal audits of care plans, medicines systems, staff supervision or appraisals. This meant there was not a reliable system for tracking and improving the service.
“The provider had not ensured there were adequate systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Medicines guidance needed strengthening
minorMedicine records were accurate and medicines were administered safely, but there was no separate guidance for medicines prescribed to be given when required. The report made a recommendation on this.
“Although there was no separate guidance about medicines prescribed to be given when required, the manager had added information to the MAR and knew people's needs well.” from the report
Fire evacuation plans lacked detail
seriousPlans had been prepared but did not contain enough information to ensure people could be evacuated safely in an emergency.
“People's fire evacuation plans had been formulated but did not contain sufficiently detailed information to ensure people were evacuated safely in the event of an emergency.” from the report
- 01What action have you taken to make sure every care plan reflects the person's current needs and risks?
- 02How do you now audit medicines, including medicines prescribed to be given when required?
- 03How are staff supervision and appraisals recorded and monitored?
- 04Have you updated each person's fire evacuation plan with enough detail for an emergency?
- 05What evidence can you show that the Regulation 17 breach has been addressed?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control, carried out to check action taken after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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, December 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, respectful care, but unsafe medicines, weak records and poor quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection over 1 and 2 October 2019. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported their choices. Food, healthcare support, visitors and links with the community were also viewed positively.
However, medicines were not always stored or recorded safely. Risk information, infection control, staff training, Mental Capacity Act records and care plans were not good enough. The systems used to check quality had failed to find these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring was Good. The previous overall rating and all five question ratings had been Good in 2017, apart from Caring which remained Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were concerned about their wellbeing.
“I feel so safe here. They [staff] are all concerned and make sure I'm alright.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had caring relationships with people and respected privacy, dignity and independence.
“One person told us staff were very respectful and always knocked on their door before entering and we observed this during the inspection.” from the report
Staff knew people well
The established staff team understood people's needs and preferences, which helped reduce the effect of gaps in written guidance.
“People were supported by an established staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Choice at mealtimes
People could choose what and where to eat, and alternatives and individual preferences were accommodated.
“People were asked what they wanted to eat at the beginning of the week and any specific preferences were accommodated.” from the report
Community and healthcare links
The home worked with health professionals and supported people to keep community, family and faith connections.
“The service had established links in the local community and worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure good outcomes for people.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicines were not always stored at a monitored temperature, and guidance for as-required medicines, creams and skin patches was incomplete. Staff training and competency checks were also missing.
“Medicines were not stored in a safe way that met best practice guidelines.” from the report
Environmental and infection risks
seriousInspectors found mould, shared fabric towels and incomplete cleaning and food hygiene records. Infection control audits were not taking place.
“Cleaning schedules and food hygiene checks had not been completed since August 2018.” from the report
Incomplete risk and care information
seriousRecords did not always explain how to manage risks such as pressure ulcers, mobility, diabetes, distress or emergency evacuation.
“People were placed at risk because records did not provide clear guidance to staff on how to manage and mitigate risks to people.” from the report
Staff training and support
seriousTraining records were incomplete, induction had not always happened before staff worked independently, and there were no supervision or appraisal records.
“The provider had not maintained an effective system to monitor the training completed by each staff member and when this was due for renewal.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousDecision-specific capacity assessments and best-interests records were not always completed. The home was not consistently following the legal framework for people who might lack capacity.
“Mental capacity assessments for people who were considered to lack the capacity to make decisions about their care and support, were not in place.” from the report
Weak care planning
needs fixingCare plans did not always describe people's backgrounds, preferences, social needs or emotional wellbeing, or give enough guidance for consistent care.
“Care plans did not always contain sufficient detail to give staff guidance on how to meet people's needs in a person-centred way and did not reflect the care being provided.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now stored, temperature-checked and recorded, including as-required medicines, creams and skin patches?
- 02Have all staff completed the required training, induction, supervision and competency checks, and how is renewal monitored?
- 03How are decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions now recorded?
- 04How have care plans and risk assessments been rewritten to reflect each person's preferences, health risks and evacuation needs?
- 05What regular audits are now completed for infection control, cleaning, medicines, recruitment, training and care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the previous rating was Good and Caring remained Good while the other ratings deteriorated to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2019 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 Venville House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.