Archived: Kayla Supported Living 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 assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

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

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 29 (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.

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.

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 routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider told us they had introduced a schedule for reviewing people’s care plans and had put a procedure in place to support this. However, at the time of our assessment, whilst the provider had developed care plans for one person, they had failed to complete a review of the care plans and assessments for the other person. The provider’s failure to prioritise this review meant we continued to be unassured that outcomes for people could be monitored to assess if changes to the support they received were needed when the provider resumed support for people.

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.