Avant Healthcare Services ltd

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. People’s needs and choices had been assessed and care was planned to reflect these assessments. The outcomes people experienced were monitored to make sure care plans remained relevant. Staff monitored people’s wellbeing and took appropriate action when they identified a change in a person’s condition or health. The staff were appropriately trained and had guidance about best practice to help ensure they delivered good quality care and support. 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’s needs and choices were assessed and care was planned to meet these needs. Assessments and plans were regularly reviewed and updated. People using the service and their relatives told us they were involved in assessments and reviews. Some of the comments from people included, ‘’The agency have regular check ins to make sure care meets [person’s] needs’’, ‘’My views have been considered’’ and ‘’We have reviews every 3 months.’’ Needs assessments included information about the person’s choices, lifestyle and how they wanted to be cared for. People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations, included physical and mental health needs. People, those important to them and staff reviewed plans regularly together.

People received care which reflected good practice. The staff undertook training to help them understand about good care. This included specialist training about people with a learning disability, dementia and how to use equipment. Staff understood about people’s healthcare needs and had additional guidance from external healthcare professionals. People using the service and their families told us they were also able to share their views about best practice for the person being cared for. They told us staff were well trained. Their comments included, ‘’They understand well how to do things and are very good at listening’’, ‘’I have been involved in training of carers [for a relative with complex healthcare needs]’’, ‘’Carers understand about autism and are good at following [person’s] choices’’ and ‘’They are well trained, listen to us and adapt care when needed.’’ In addition to a range of training, the provider shared written information and had learning discussions and supervision with staff about specific topics. When a person had an identified need, they made sure they provided staff with relevant guidance and support. The staff told us they felt the training was good and helped them to provide effective care based on best practice.

The provider helped to make sure outcomes were monitored. People’s relatives confirmed this, explaining staff identified when things were wrong and shared these with them and their families, for example, a decline in a person’s health or mobility. Staff kept records of the care they provided. These records included information about people’s wellbeing and condition. The management team liaised with other healthcare professionals and alerted them when needed. Care plans were regularly reviewed to make sure planned outcomes were being met.

People had consented to their care and treatment. The provider assessed people’s mental capacity to make decisions. For people who lacked the mental capacity to consent to their care and treatment, the provider made decisions in their best interests with their representatives. The provider obtained information about people’s legal representatives and made sure they involved them in decisions. People using the service confirmed staff asked them to consent and offered them choices when delivering care. The staff had undertaken training regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood their responsibilities under the Act.