Advent House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff spoke positively about the people they cared for. They knew the people they supported well. however, they did not always promote compassion and dignity. We observed and reviewed inappropriate interactions between staff the people they supportedboth in person and documented in care and treatment records. For example, staff did not always appropriate language within care and treatment records.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did include information related to people within assessments. Staff did not document or take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff told us they supported people in their choices about their strengths, culture or beliefs.

At the last inspection, we found people had limited choice in their daily lives, especially around food. At this inspection we found the same. The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There was no evidence to support how people were supported with their preferences, such as, staff members, times of personal care delivery or food. We found people were not supported with their preferences regarding activities. There were no individual activity plans in place, and it was unclear how the service made decisions about what activities people enjoyed doing. The service had a visual activity board which was not updated to reflect people’s activities, despite staff telling us they were in use. We observed minimal activities taking place within the home. People were supported to attend external activities, however there were limited opportunities for activities within the service. Staff could give examples of how people were offered choice when choosing what they want to wear.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff did not always understand people’s needs. For example, we reviewed incident forms which made recommendations to people’s individual needs however, they were not implemented in care plans or adhered to by staff. For example, one person became agitated around personal care, but this was not explored how best to support them.

However, we observed a person who required immediate attention due to potential choking risk and staff responded appropriately.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. There was limited communication between management and staff. The provider could not provide any recent staff survey results, and it was unclear on how staff were supported as there were no regular team meetings, appraisals or supervision. There was mixed feedback from staff, for example, some staff felt supported by managers and some staff felt management could provide more support. A staff member said, “There is some staff work well together. Sometimes staff feel they don’t get enough support from management. Sometimes on nights the staff don’t do what they are supposed to do”.