You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 November 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 15 August 2018. This was the first inspection of Advent Care Solutions Ltd since registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in August 2017.

Advent Care Solutions Ltd is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Advent Care Solutions Ltd is a small registered care home in Rosebank Avenue, Harrow, Northwest London. Advent Care Solutions Ltd is registered to accommodate three people. At the time of our inspection two people used the service Currently the home is only providing respite care. Respite care is temporary residential care of a sick, elderly, or disabled person, providing relief for their usual carer. The registered manager told us that the service provided respite care to eight different people at times when they needed it.

Advent Care Solutions Ltd is providing care to people with learning disabilities and autism. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A manager is registered with the CQC. 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.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. The manager understood their responsibilities around safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. The service was clean and suitable for the people who used it, and appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff.

Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervision and appraisals. People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people's nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of people’s healthcare needs being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people's independence by encouraging them to care for themselves, but being provided with assistance when needed. Support plans were in place that recorded people's plans and wishes for their life. Care records showed that people's needs were assessed before they started using the service. Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs. People had access to a wide range of meaningful activities such as swimming, going to the cinema, attendance at day services, sight-seeing, bowling and walks to local amenities. The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 November 2018

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe because they were supported by staff they knew and trusted.

Risks to people who use the service were minimised and appropriate risk management plans were developed together with people, staff and specialists.

The recruitment of staff was safe and there were sufficient staff to provide the support people needed.

Medicines were managed safely. There were policies and procedures in place and staff had received training in administering medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 November 2018

The service was effective. People’s needs were assessed to ensure the service could meet their needs.

Staff received the induction, training and supervision they needed to be able to provide safe and effective care.

People's rights and choices were respected. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA.).

People told us they liked the food, it was home cooked and they were always offered choices.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 November 2018

The service was caring. People told us staff were caring and nice.

Staff interacted with people who used the service in a relaxed, warm and respectful way.

Care records contained information on what people could do for themselves, skills they wanted to learn and how staff could promote people's independence.

People's records were stored securely so that people's privacy and confidentiality was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 November 2018

The service was responsive. A range of activities and events were provided helping to promote people's health and wellbeing and maintain links with the local community.

Care records were detailed and person centred and contained information about people's health and social care needs.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 November 2018

The service was well-led. Everyone spoke positively about the registered manager and the way the service was managed.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and arrangements were in place to seek feedback from people who used the service.

Staff we spoke with enjoyed their work, liked working for the service and told us they felt supported.