Archived: Advantage Healthcare - Leeds

We used this information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

Everyone spoken with said they felt safe with and within the care provided and were happy with the staff who cared for their relatives.

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

The agency had a safeguarding children and adults policy in place. Staff working at the agency confirmed they received adequate training to carry out their support roles. All staff received training in safeguarding adults and children. Recruitment practice is safe and thorough.

Relatives told us the care coordinator visited prior to any support being offered to carry out a full comprehensive assessment of their relative's health, care and social support needs and preferences.

Is the service effective?

Relatives described the time taken to ensure the care agency understood completely the need and requirements of their relative. One relative said 'We had good information before the agency started. They linked with other professionals providing care and support so the whole plan of care came together.'

We spoke with three care staff who told us they knew people's individual needs and they provided care and support depending upon what people needed and wanted.

Is the service caring?

All of the staff spoke warmly about the people they support and how much they gained from their work.

Relatives spoken with confirmed they received performance review questionnaires and were regularly asked about the quality of the service. They said they felt their concerns about the service were listened to and action was taken if necessary.

Is the service responsive?

Records seen showed complaints were recorded and appropriate action had been taken. One person told us they felt the management team responded promptly to their complaint and action was taken. We saw evidence that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The agency had contingency plans to deal with any emergency and an on call system. The manager showed us their plans to manage the service during the Tour de France in July which will affect a large area of Leeds with road closures and large crowds making accessing clients a challenge.

Is the service well-led?

The agency had a range of quality assurance systems in place to help determine the quality of the service offered.

We spoke with three staff who confirmed they had been vetted thoroughly before they started worked for the organisation. Staff said they felt supported to do their work and they addressed any training needs with the care coordinator. Staff told us they felt they had sufficient opportunities to undertake training to ensure they were skilled and able to do their work.

The agency worked with other professionals involved in the care of the people they supported.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw that care plans were well organised, included personal information, personal preferences and social needs.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff were required to undergo competency training and were not allowed to work in care environments until they had demonstrated their understanding of infection control measures. Relatives confirmed staff maintained good hand hygiene and disposed of soiled material appropriately. One relative said the staff always, 'Leave the house clean and tidy.'

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. All new staff underwent an induction to orientate them to provider's methods of working. New staff had introduction meetings with people who received the service and were then required to work at least one shift shadowing an experienced member of staff before being approved to work unsupervised.

The provider had carried out annual client and staff satisfaction surveys. People who used the service and their relatives were very satisfied with the quality of the staff, the level of contact they had with the office staff and how any complaints they had made had been handled.