Kayla Supported Living 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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 29 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

One person had not had an initial assessment of need, care plans developed or any documentation of the care they had received until mid-January 2026. This was despite them having been in receipt of care several months prior to the introduction of the electronic care record system in August 2025. This meant there was no record of the care and support they needed, how they preferred to receive it or how and when the care had been delivered prior to January 2026.

Care plans did not give detail of how people preferred their care to be delivered or of personal preferences and choices and there was no evidence of involvement of the person or their family in the planning of their care. One person’s care plan included a review date but there was no record of what had been reviewed, if any changes had been made or if the person had been involved.

Care plans included a section titled ‘Daily routine’ but this did not clearly detail the support people need at each visit.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

There was no information available to evidence the provider had links with outside services. Although one person received some support from health care professionals, this was not mentioned in the person’s care documentation.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not have access to their electronic care plans and relatives confirmed there were no paper based care plans or records of care in people’s houses.

The communication section of one person’s care plan said they needed easy read documents. However, there was no evidence of any documentation provided to the person.

Communication was referred to in one person’s care plan but there was no detail about how staff could support effective communication.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was no evidence of people having been involved in making decisions about their care or reviews of the care they were receiving. Relatives, although satisfied with the service, confirmed they had not been involved. There were no systems in place for gaining people’s views about the service. The provider said they had not received any complaints from people about the service they provided.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider said they would contact health professionals involved in people’s care as needed. However, names and contact details of involved professionals were not recorded within care documentation, nor any details of the support each person needed in relation to health professionals or services, taking into consideration their specific care needs and disability.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

People had not been given the opportunity to give their views during the development of their care plans or to give feedback about their care. People’s religious needs or beliefs were not recorded. Staff had not received training in inequality and discrimination.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s future wishes or decisions had not been recorded. Although the electronic care records and a hospital passport in place included sections for recording people’s DNACPR [Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation] wishes, these had not been completed. This meant staff would not be able to inform paramedics about people’s wishes in the case of an emergency.