Aventus Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed thoroughly before care began. Assessments included detailed information about health conditions, communication needs, mobility, nutrition, continence, personal preference sand emotional wellbeing. For example, assessments for people with needs such as epilepsy or swallowing difficulties included clear clinical information and instructions from health professionals.

We saw that a policy had been updated when planning a reduction in epilepsy medication for a person being supported. A multidisciplinary meeting with their Neurologist, GP and family was held which also included staff. The registered manager advised us that “support plans were updated and seizure monitoring implemented to ensure medication was reduced safely and in line with STOMP principles.”Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP) is a national NHS England work programme to stop the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met in line with current standards and evidence-based guidance which the provider kept up to date with, and systems were in place to support people with the complexities of their medical conditions. Communication tools were always tailored to each individual and available to them to enable them to express their views, wishes and to make decisions.

One relative told us,“Inthe recent past and nowthey lookreally healthy,theylikewalking and exercise.”

Staff followed clear routines for skin care, nutrition, and infection control. Risk assessments were structured and aligned with sector‑recognised tools, such as those for pressure damage, falls and choking risks.

Policies were updatedto reflect current standards.The medication policy was reviewed and amended on 15thAugust 2025. Theregistered manageradvisedus that the‘Updates include moving information regarding STOMP into a new section and adding a new form to advise how organisations should deliver STOMP, additionally references have been checked to ensure they remain current’.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. An example of this was when somebody was supported to have assessments and surgery which made a significant positive impact on the life. The care staff had advocated on the persons behalf, carried out Best InterestAssessmentsand ensure they hada high levelof support.

People and their relatives told us their care was coordinated well and staff worked well together internally and with partner agencies. Comments included,“I am sure they work as a team to give him personalised care, “and(relative)is a people person and spendstime in the lounge or kitchen. When staff prepare meals,he sits in the kitchen with them.”

Staff understood people’s needs well. The provider had systems in place to ensure people only needed to tell their story once, and when there were changes to people’s care, this was shared effectively using the care planning system.

Staff ensured joined up care by using the technology they had for care records. They have PINs which are needed in handover to ensurethey have read and understood the persons needs for that day.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence,choiceand control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them to manage their health and health and social care related activities, and that staff took an interest in how best to support people. One person toldus, "(relative)is a people person and spendstime in the lounge or kitchen. When staff preparemeals,(relative) sits in the kitchen with them.Theycannot stand at the sink and sometimes has a bowl on the table to do the washing up.”
Records showed staff worked with healthcare professionals - such as the dentist, district nursingteamand GP - to support people to live healthier lives.

We saw care plans and risk assessments for people using gym equipment and attending regular swimming sessions.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider monitored outcomes through regular reviews, audits, daily notes and care plan updates. There was evidence of monitoring in areas such as medication administration, falls risk, skin integrity and nutrition.

People’s outcomes were clearly recorded with evidence of progress, changes in need and the actions taken in response.

One relative told us “Staff listen to us. If I was seeing a negative change in their wellbeing or behaviour, I would not hesitate to initiate a review” .Another told us “T hey take(relative)to appointments and communicate with us. For example, when the neurologist changed their medication, the staff explained the change and that initially this may cause a deterioration.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s care plans evidenced best interest processes were followed in line with the Mental Capacity Act(MCA).

Staff had completed relevant training, respected people’s choices and were knowledgeable about the relevant legislation.

We saw records in care plans when Best Interest decisions had been made, and the clear reasons for these. We saw appropriate policies for Safeguarding, and MCA policies and procedures.