• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Advantage Healthcare - London and South East

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

7th Floor, Grosvenor House, 125 High Street, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 9XP (020) 8256 1990

Provided and run by:
Advantage Healthcare Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 7 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection. The inspection took place on 17 September 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of the inspection to make sure a member of the management team was available in the office to meet with us. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an expert by experience who made phone calls to people and their relatives after the inspection. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications received from the provider and the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form we asked the provider to complete prior to our visit which gives us some key information about the service, including what the service does well, what the service could do better and improvements they plan to make. We also sent questionnaires to people using the service, their relatives, staff and professionals to gather their views on the service. We received responses from five people who used the service, two relatives, 24 staff and three professionals. We reviewed all responses received as part of our inspection planning.

During the inspection we spoke with the deputy manager, the service manager, three nurse case managers. We looked at a range of records including four staff files, 15 people’s care plans, records relating to medicines management and other records relating to the management of the service. After the inspection our expert by experience spoke with 16 people using the service and 10 relatives via telephone.

After the inspection we spoke with four care staff. We also contacted 19 professionals to gather their feedback on the service and we received feedback from six.

Overall inspection


Updated 7 November 2018

Interserve Healthcare – London & South East is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and nursing care to people living in their own homes. The agency provided complex nursing care to people across London, Kent and Surrey. There were 280 people receiving services from Interserve Healthcare - London and South East at the time of our inspection which included around 60 children and around 200 people nationally receiving daily renal dialysis from the service. The service had expanded substantially since our last inspection due to the merger of other services under the same provider. The provider managed this expansion well and it did not have any impact on people’s care.

This inspection took place on 17 September 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours to make sure a member of the management team was available in the office to meet with us. At our last inspection of the service in January 2016 we rated the service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff training was designed around people’s individual needs and staff were assessed as competent before providing care. Some staff received training from hospital staff before people were discharged into their own homes. A training programme was in place and nurses were offered courses in specialist clinical skills to enable them to meet people’s needs and retain their professional nursing registration. Staff received regular supervision and observations of their practice to ensure they were caring for people in the best ways.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Staff received training in medicines management and were assessed as competent to provide any specialist techniques involved in administering medicines.

People received care from staff who the provider checked were suitable during recruitment. There were enough staff to support people safely although some people were concerned about timekeeping and the provider was reviewing this across the service.

Risks relating to people’s care were assessed by the provider. Management plans were in place for staff to follow in reducing the risks to people. Care plans informed staff about people’s individual needs and how they preferred to receive their care.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding adults at risk. People felt safe with the staff who supported them. The provider responded promptly to protect people if any allegation of abuse was made.

People received the right support in relation to eating and drinking and staff were aware of people’s needs. Staff were able to meet people’s complex nursing care needs and people’s day to day healthcare needs were met.

People were positive about the staff who supported them and professionals told us staff provided an ‘extremely’ person-centred service. Staff treated people with kindness, and dignity and respect and respected their privacy. Staff developed good relationships with people and understood their needs and preferences. People were involved in their care and were supported to maintain their independence.

The provider requested the local authority carry out Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 assessments when they suspected people may lack capacity in relation to their care. However, this meant sometimes assessments were delayed and were not carried out before people received their care, as required. We recommended the provider review their processes in relation to MCA assessments to avoid this delay.

The provider investigated any accidents and incidents, concerns and complaints with robust systems to check the action taken was suitable. People had confidence in how the provider responded to any issues.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. The provider also gathered feedback from people and staff and used this as part of improving the service.