• Care Home
  • Care home

Advent House

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

125 Bottom Boat Road, Stanley, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF3 4AR (01924) 826868

Provided and run by:
Ark Specialist Healthcare LLP

Important:

We have served a warning notice to Ark Specialist Healthcare LLP on 17 March 2026 for failing to meet regulations in relation to good governance at Advent House.

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Inadequate

Updated 16 December 2025

Date of assessment: 14 January to 5 February 2026. This service is a residential care home providing support to people with a learning disability, and or autistic people for up to 10 people. There were 7 people living there at the time of our assessment. We found 3 breaches of regulation relating to safeguarding, person-centered care and good governance. At the last inspection the provider was in breach of regulation 12 relating to safe care and treatment. We completed this assessment in response to a follow-up of a previous warning notice. We assessed this service against ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance to make our judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities. We found this service did not always work within these principles.

As part of this assessment, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a structured framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves. Our observations confirmed there were limited activities within the service, but staff were able to respond to any immediate needs people had.

People’s wishes and choices were not fully understood and the service did not always explore choices for people in their daily lives. People were not involved in decisions about their care. Care records did not reflect the needs of people and their health and wellbeing was not always monitored.

Managers did not have oversight of the service. The service was unclean at the time of inspection. The service did not always have effective audits in place to monitor, maintain and improve the quality of the service. Records such as daily notes, handover documents and audits were often incomplete.

The service employed a lot of agency staff within the service. Relatives we spoke to were concerned about the staffing at the service and told us at times, people were not supported to meet their needs and preferences. Managers did not ensure staff had access to regular supervision, appraisals and team meetings. Staff we spoke to demonstrated care towards people at the service and knew them well.

People's experience of the service

Updated 16 December 2025

Feedback from relatives was collected as people at the service communicated non-verbally. Feedback from most relatives was negative. Most relatives felt their loved ones were not safe at the service. A relative said, “I don’t think [my relative] are safe. There are lots of issues regarding [their] safety and how [they] are looked after. I think it wants shutting down”. Another relative described the service as, “At first they were good, but the last 6 months have been awful”.

Relatives told us staffing was an issue at the service and that the service used a lot of agency staff. A relative said, “I think they have a real problem with staff. Some of the staff are good, but they have a huge turnover. They have a lot of agency staff, which is a problem. They are either not confident or don't have the skills to take [relative] out and go places with [them]. [They] are supposed to be two to one with a full-time staff member all the time. But at times [They] will have just two bank staff”.

There was mixed feedback about communication. For example, most relatives told us they felt communication was poor from the service and that, “At times they don’t tell us things that have happened”. Some relatives described the communication as “ok”.

Relatives told us they hadn’t attended any review meetings for their loved one for a long time. One relative said it had been over 2 years since they were last invited to a meeting.

Relatives provided mixed feedback about the management at the service. One relative said, “It is not well managed at all. That is half of the problem there”. 4 relatives told us management needed improving and they were not happy with the management. One person described the management as “unorganised”. 3 relatives said management had improved since the service obtained a new registered manager and they felt confident they will make improvements.