Venville House provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight older people. It is not a nursing home. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

At the last inspection in October 2014 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

The service continued to provide safe care to people. One person commented: “The staff keep me safe.” Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. People’s rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate legal processes. Medicines were safely managed on people’s behalf.

Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. Their views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, which they enjoyed.

Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.

The service was caring and people had built strong relationships with each other and staff. People engaged in a wide variety of activities and spent time in the local community going to specific places of interest.

Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them and encouraged their professional development.

A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and made continuous improvements in response to their findings.

Venville House provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight older people. It is not a nursing home. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home.

At the last inspection in October 2014 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

The service continued to provide safe care to people. One person commented: “The staff keep me safe.” Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. People’s rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate legal processes. Medicines were safely managed on people’s behalf.

Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. Their views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, which they enjoyed.

Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.

There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.

The service was caring and people had built strong relationships with each other and staff. People engaged in a wide variety of activities and spent time in the local community going to specific places of interest.

Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them and encouraged their professional development.

A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and made continuous improvements in response to their findings.

We did not ask people using the service about their experience of living at Venville House due to their condition and their not knowing us, although we spoke to several of them in general terms. However, one we spoke with told us that the food was "beautiful". We observed the registered manager holding conversations with people about food and activities at the home.

A health care professional told us that the home was extremely good at meeting people's individual needs and would go to any length to do so. She said she had enormous confidence in the ability of the staff working at the home. We found that the home was calm and relaxing and people appeared very contented as they did different activities during the day. We also found that people had regular opportunities to leave the home for shopping, walking and other activities of interest.

We found that people's care and health needs were well promoted. External health care professionals were contacted for advice on a regular basis. These had included hospital, GP and district nurse visits. People received support and assistance to achieve a good standard of personal care.

People received drinks and food which suited them and provided a nutritious diet. One person said how much they liked a roast dinner and the day we visited the lunch was roast pork and vegetables.

There had been no new staff at the home for several years. There was continuity of care.

Record keeping was good, which ensured people's needs were planned and monitored effectively.

We looked at the care plans of the seven people living at the service. We observed people being supported throughout the day. We saw that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. We saw in care plans that people's views and experiences were taken into account. One person told us "it's very nice living here" and "the lady who runs it is very nice".

There was evidence in care plans of people's needs being assessed, plans being drawn up, implemented and reviewed. We found the provider was regularly reviewing how the service was meeting people's needs.

Staff told us of action they would take if abuse was suspected, witnessed or alleged. We saw staff were trained in safeguarding people. One staff member told us "the residents come first" another said "providing care and attention and listening to people is top of the list".

We found by looking at staff rotas and training records and speaking with the provider that there was sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff to provide care and support for people. People told us there were enough staff with one person saying "I go out to places when I want."

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. We saw evidence of these systems having been used effectively in order to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people. An example being that the provider had taken steps to minimise potential trips hazards and obstacles.

We conducted an unannounced visit to Venville House on 3 February 2012 as part of a planned inspection of the service. We met each of the people who used the service but found that none of them could tell us what it was like to use the service. However, we observed staff providing care, spoke with two care workers and the manager and looked at some records. We spoke with five people's families and we contacted a health care professional with knowledge of the home.

People's families told us:

"Absolutely fantastic. It is like a family home. Very caring. Xxx's 's very content and well looked after and they keep me well informed."

"Xxxx's improved since she's lived there and seems happy. They go out a lot. There's a tea dance, coffee shop visits etc. I can talk to the manager at any time."

"I would feel confident to take any concerns to the manager."

We saw that people lived within a very homely environment, almost as part of the provider's family, two of whom were living on the premises. People were seen smiling, knitting, dancing and singing. There was a good rapport between care workers, the manager and people who used the service.

People looked very well cared for in the way that they were dressed and their appearance and their families said that this was always the case. People's health care needs were being met and they benefited from regular visitors to the home and frequent off-site activities.

There were detailed records of people's needs, how staff were to meet those needs and what daily activities had taken place in each person's life.

Staffing arrangements were flexible and ensured that people's care needs could be met at all times.

People were safeguarded from abuse through the close supervision of day to day events at the home and staff knowledge.