Avant Healthcare Services ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People were supported with accessing other services and being part of the local community. There were systems to help provide people with the information they needed about the service and their care. People were able to speak up and felt listened to and involved. People received support which met their individual needs and respected their human rights. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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.

People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. Comments from people using the service and their relatives included, ‘’I am really happy with the agency. They took their time to find out about [person] and what [they] needed and liked’’, ‘’They listen to what we say and take this on board, they learn and adapt the care to make sure it is what [person] needs’’ and ‘’They are flexible and we can book extra care when we need.’’ Relatives told us how people were supported to access community activities and leisure events, helping people to use public transport, shops, community facilities and making sure these activities reflected personal choices and needs. Staff used different forms of communication, including specialist equipment when needed, to help make sure people understood them and felt understood.

The agency provided information for people about their care and the services they could expect. Care plans were electronic, and family members could access these and records about care. This enabled them to monitor whether care was being delivered as planned. People and their relatives told us they had a range of information about different aspects of the service, including how to make a complaint or who to contact if needed. They also told us they were given information through regular emails and newsletters about the agency and other services they may wish to access, such as community charities and advocacy services. Some of the comments from people and their relatives included, ‘’The manager has been very good at communication – right from the beginning’’ and ‘’I was really impressed, someone from the office rings me and checks we are happy, communication is very good.’’ Staff were trained and skilled in using personalised communication systems to help them interact with people who could not use words to communicate and to provide them with the information they needed.

The provider had systems for listening and involving people. There was a clear complaints procedure. People were aware of this and new how to make a complaint. People felt these were responded to appropriately. Their comments included, ‘’The managers know I will always challenge if things are not right. I am happy with their response’’ and ‘’Everything gets resolved quickly.’’ People and their relatives told us they had opportunities to contribute their views. They told us phone calls and emails were responded to well and they felt they worked in partnership with the agency. People were invited to contribute to reviews and the provider had a range of quality monitoring systems during which they contacted people for feedback in person, by the telephone and through written surveys. We saw the agency had collated and acted on the responses, making changes as a result of people’s feedback. People had individual communication care plans that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication, including the approach to use for different situations.

People had good outcomes and experienced equity. People told us they did not experience discrimination and staff understood and respected their lifestyle, culture, religion and family homes. The provider had policies and procedures to help ensure people’s rights were respected and reasonable adjustments were made when needed to help make sure people experienced positive outcomes. Care assessments and plans recorded people’s diverse needs and explained when they needed additional support to meet these.