Advent House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate.

This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 36 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Some people had specific care needs in relation to physical health which were not evidenced in care planning documentation. Where people’s needs had changed, the provider did not maintain, and update peoples care and treatment records.

The provider did not respect or attempt to identify people’s preferences or lifestyle choices. There was little evidence for tailoring communication needs for each individual to identify their wants and needs. Staff told us they knew the residents needs however the service used agency staff so it was unclear how people’s preferences would be communicated with all staff who worked at the service.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. For example, referrals made from external professionals were not always adhered to and implemented at the service.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s needs. At the last inspection we found limited communication aids used for people who had limited verbal communication, at this inspection we found the same. There was no information in care records how staff gained the views of people who used the service. The provider shared some examples of easy read documents they had in place, but it was unclear how people were provided information about their care and treatment. One staff member told us, “If I don’t know what people want, I call the senior or another colleague to help, I am not aware of any other method”.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Most relatives we spoke to told us there was poor communication between them and staff at the service and this was supported through our review of documents. We found limited information to support the involvement of both people who used the service and relatives. 4 relatives told us they had not attended a review meeting for their family member in over a year. We found limited evidence that relatives were involved with their people’s care and treatment. Staff told us they spoke to relatives regularly but there was limited evidence to support this.

Staff met with people to discuss their views on their bedrooms, but we did not receive any evidence on how people were involved in decisions about the service including any complaints or compliments they had.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service supported people with a learning disability, yet their needs were not fully understood or met. There was a lack of information recorded regarding activities and monitoring of people’s progress. For example, a relative said, “They never record events, so it is difficult for me to comment. [Relative] likes to go out but it is rare it happens.”

Staff and managers did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

In each person’s care plan there was a form for staff to sign to state they had read this. Not all staff had signed the forms which meant we were unsure if staff had read and understood individual care and treatment for people using the service. Individualised care plans and risk assessments had not been updated regularly meaning there was a risk people were not receiving individually tailored care.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care records did not develop long-term goals people had and it was difficult to identify involvement from people.