You are here

Advance Housing and Support Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 July 2018

Advance Fareham is registered to provide personal care to people. At the time of our inspection, the service was supporting six people. It provides a service to older people and younger adults living with learning disabilities, autism, mental health conditions and dementia.

This service provides care and support to people living in 'supported living' settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People's housing was provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support only.

Some people lived in two houses of multiple occupation. This meant at least three people shared household facilities such as toilets, bathrooms and kitchens. Other people lived in a block of seven self-contained flats with their own household facilities. The houses and flats were situated close to each other geographically, in the same city.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Not everyone using Advance Fareham received regulated activity; the Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people received these services, their wider social needs were taken into account.

People were supported with their medication. The service was not recording the room temperatures of where medicines were being stored. Where the service was supporting people with self-administration and storing their medicines for them; the records did not always show the boxed medication had been given to the person. The registered manager had extra training organised to further improve how the service assists individuals with taking their medicines. Medication and health and safety audits were completed.

People were safeguarded from abuse in the service. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in protecting people from abuse and raising concerns. Staff had received training in safeguarding.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and lessons identified where possible.

Staff were recruited safely, following the appropriate checks. Staff received effective training and support to carry out their duties.

Care plans included person-centred information about risks and how to mitigate them safely. People were referred to other healthcare professionals as needed, in a timely fashion. The service worked in partnership with other professionals and agencies.

The registered person was notifying the Commission without delay of certain types of incidents for example abuse or allegations of abuse.

People were treated equally and in accordance with the Equalities Act 2010.

The service was not supporting people at the end of their lives at the time of the inspection. The service had discussed some people’s wishes for the end of their lives and planned to further explore end of life choices with people.

People were supported in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff always sought consent from people before supporting them.

The service incorporated best practice guidance into their care and support. People told us that staff were kind and caring towards them. People were treated with dignity and respect.

The service was well-led, people and staff felt well supported by the registered manager. Staff understood their responsibilities and were proud of achievements they had made in their work.

People knew how to raise a complaint and received feedback from the service about the investigation of their complaint.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 July 2018

The service was Safe.

Staff knew how to raise concerns about abuse.

Appropriate risk assessments were carried out to support people to be safe.

There was sufficient numbers of staff.

Room temperatures of where medicines were kept were not recorded. When the service was storing medication for people who were self-administering, it was not always recorded when they were given their medicines.



Updated 10 July 2018

The service was Effective.

The service was supporting people with regard to best practice guidance.

People were supported to access healthcare services as needed.

Staff were well trained and supported.



Updated 10 July 2018

The service was Caring.

People were treated with respect and given support as needed.

People were supported to make decisions about their care.

People�s dignity and respect was maintained.



Updated 10 July 2018

The service was Responsive.

People were at the centre of their care and their needs were met.

People knew how to make a complaint and were given feedback in response to their concerns.



Updated 10 July 2018

The service was Well-led.

There were processes in place to provide good outcomes for people.

The service learnt lessons and improved the service as a result.

There was a supportive and transparent culture in the service.