Archived: Advent Care Team Limited

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was safe. Everybody had a care plan that detailed their care needs. This was sufficiently clear that a new staff member would be able to read the plan and understand what needed to be done and how the person liked their care to be provided. People commented that the care staff knew what to do and that they became more adapt at meeting their personal preferences as they got to know them. The care plans also highlighted what staff should expect on arriving at the property, for example where a key was located. Everyone's care needs were reviewed, and if necessary updated, on a regular basis.

Is the service responsive?

The agency sent out regular surveys to find out what people thought of the service they received. Senior staff explained how they followed up the responses to their survey. For example they had found that people were anxious about the time-keeping of their carers. The agency showed us what steps they had taken to respond to people's concerns.

We also looked at the way the agency responded to complaints and saw that they were careful to address every issue with consideration and understanding. Where an issue could not be resolved with-in Advent Care Team they liaised with the appropriate statutory agencies.

Is the service well-led?

We found the service was well-led. The agency had in place systems to ensure that they knew when people needed to have their care routinely reviewed. The management visited people who received a service on a regular basis and spoke with them about the care that they were given. Where there were problems the management responded quickly to try to resolve these. Advent Care Team used a computerised system to manage the records. This had initially caused some difficulties however these had largely been overcome.

Most people were positive about the service and felt that they were treated respectfully. Comments included, 'Absolutely, they treat me well' and 'Generally they have plenty of time to help me and the carers are OK'. One person said they were not treated respectfully and we made the registered manager aware of this.

People told us that they felt their care needs were met. Comments included, "Yes, they do the job pretty much'. However, we found that people's care plans frequently contained insufficient detail to provide safe, personalised care. We also found that there was ineffective planning of care delivery and communication within the staff team.

Reasonable steps had been taken to protect people from the risk of abuse. For example, care workers had received appropriate training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Records were accessible and stored securely. However, they did not contain sufficient detail to ensure safe and effective care.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor quality. People's view had been sought but their comments had not been acted upon. Spot checks on the service were infrequent.

Everyone we spoke with thought that staff were polite and respectful and said that staff provided care and support in a respectful way. One person said "The staff are very respectful, it's very important, no question'.

Everyone we spoke with was pleased with the staff they had. The people we spoke with said that staff provided the care and support they needed.

People told us they felt safe with staff and that staff respected their property and belongings. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and knew how to recognise signs and report it correctly.

We saw evidence that there were enough qualified and experienced staff to deliver safe care.

We looked at staff recruitment files and found some missing information. This included photographic proof of identity for staff.

We saw the service had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.