You are here

Avant (Hillingdon) Healthcare Services Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 August 2018

The inspection took place on 23 July 2018. We told the provider two working days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and staff might be out visiting people.

The last inspection of the service was on 8 August 2017 when re rated the service requires improvement. Following this, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of ''Is the service safe?'', ''Is the service responsive?'' and ''Is the service well-led?'' to at least ‘good’. We had rated the key questions, ''Is the service effective?'' and ''Is the service caring?'' as good. The provider told us they would make all the necessary improvements by 30 April 2018. At this inspection of 23 July 2018, we found the necessary improvements had been made and have rated the service as good for all key questions and overall.

Avant Healthcare (Hillingdon) Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and adults under the age of 65 with a disability or mental health needs living in the London Borough of Hillingdon. At the time of the inspection 62 people were using the service. The service is one of three locations managed by the provider, a private limited company.

There was not a registered manager in post. There was a branch manager in charge of the day to day running of the service and they were supported by an operations manager. The branch manager planned to apply for registration in the future. In the meantime, the operations manager had applied to be registered for the service. This application had been submitted to the Care Quality Commission but had not been processed at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were generally happy with the service, they liked their care workers and felt that their needs were being met. Some people said that care visits did not always take place at the planned time. The provider had systems to audit and respond to any visits which were late or did not take place as planned. People told us that they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They said that the agency responded to changes in their needs or request for changes to the care package. The staff were kind, polite and caring.

The staff felt supported. They had access to a range of training and took part in regular individual and group meetings to discuss their work and the service. They were able to feedback their opinions to the managers and good practice was praised and rewarded.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for. The provider had procedures designed to safeguard people from abuse and to investigate any accidents, incidents or complaints. People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. People had consented to their care and the provider had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider had effective systems for monitoring the quality of the service and making improvements. These included a range of audits and asking people using the service and other stakeholders for their views and ideas. The managers worked closely to reflect on their practice and look at ways improvements could be made. People were able to make complaints. These were investigated and appropriately responded to. The records used by the provider were accurate, up to date and complete.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 August 2018

The service was safe.

Systems and processes were designed to safeguard people from abuse.

Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff deployed to care for people and meet their needs.

People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed.

There were systems for learning from when things went wrong and making improvements.

People were protected from by the prevention and control of infection.



Updated 10 August 2018

The service was effective.

The provider assessed people's needs and preferences and planned care to meet these.

People were supported by staff who received the training and supervision they required.

The provider had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people consented to their care.

People were supported to access healthcare services when needed.

People received support to maintain a balanced diet and stay hydrated.



Updated 10 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind, caring, polite and compassionate staff.

People were involved in making decisions about their care.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.



Updated 10 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences.

People knew how to make a complaint. Complaints were investigated and the provider responded to these.



Updated 10 August 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider had effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service.

People using the service, staff and other stakeholders were able to contribute their ideas and were listened to.

There was a clear management structure and the provider had shown a commitment to making improvements to the service.