Advent House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 8 May 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 14 January to 5 February 2026. This service is a residential care home providing support to people with a learning disability, and or autistic people for up to 10 people. There were 7 people living there at the time of our assessment. We found 3 breaches of regulation relating to safeguarding, person-centered care and good governance. At the last inspection the provider was in breach of regulation 12 relating to safe care and treatment. We completed this assessment in response to a follow-up of a previous warning notice. We assessed this service against ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ guidance to make our judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities. We found this service did not always work within these principles.

As part of this assessment, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a structured framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves. Our observations confirmed there were limited activities within the service, but staff were able to respond to any immediate needs people had.

People’s wishes and choices were not fully understood and the service did not always explore choices for people in their daily lives. People were not involved in decisions about their care. Care records did not reflect the needs of people and their health and wellbeing was not always monitored.

Managers did not have oversight of the service. The service was unclean at the time of inspection. The service did not always have effective audits in place to monitor, maintain and improve the quality of the service. Records such as daily notes, handover documents and audits were often incomplete.

The service employed a lot of agency staff within the service. Relatives we spoke to were concerned about the staffing at the service and told us at times, people were not supported to meet their needs and preferences. Managers did not ensure staff had access to regular supervision, appraisals and team meetings. Staff we spoke to demonstrated care towards people at the service and knew them well.