Kayla Supported Living Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Following our last assessment, CQC imposed an urgent suspension of the provider’s registration to provide personal care to people. This suspension was still in place at the time of this assessment. CQC had given the provider an action plan which included making sure care plans were in place and accurate for both people receiving personal care. At this assessment we found care plans had been developed for the person who, at the time of the last assessment, did not have any care plans in place. However, care plans for the other person had not been reviewed. The provider’s failure to prioritise this important work in preparation for resuming care did not assure us of their commitment to treating people as individuals or making sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

We could not make a judgement as there was not enough evidence for us to rate this quality statement.

Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

During the suspension of regulated activities, the provider had enabled the staff member to access some on-line training. Whilst they told us they had met with the staff member for discussion and supervision, this had not always been documented.

Scores and ratings have not been changed for this assessment and are based on the previous inspection. This is because no regulated activity was being delivered at the time of this assessment.