Kayla Supported Living Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.

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 25 (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 have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

At our last assessment the provider was not able to show us any evidence of the vision and values of the service or how these were shared with staff. There were no systems in place to promote a culture in which people’s views were sought and listened to in order to drive improvement within the service.

The provider told us in their action plan that they would create a service improvement plan that would be updated weekly. We did not see evidence of this. The provider did not have a vision and values plan and there were no records of vision and values being discussed with the staff member. The provider told us they were going to develop an anonymous feedback form to gain people’s views about the service, but this had not been completed, and the provider was not sure how results of feedback and actions taken in response would be shared.

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 demonstrate that they had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider was also the registered manager of the service. They had made sufficient improvements to give assurances that they were committed to putting systems in place to demonstrate their ability to provide a safe service to people. We were not able, at this stage, to assess the effectiveness of this commitment as the provider was not providing a regulated activity to 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.

People did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

At our last assessment the provider did not have any evidence of systems in place to encourage or empower staff or people using the service to raise concerns or give feedback about the service. At this assessment they told us they had plans in place for seeking feedback from people, but this was not yet operational.

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 value diversity in their workforce. They did not work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

We found serious failings in the providers approach to ensuring an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had employed a number of staff from overseas through a UK visa and immigration sponsorship programme but had failed in their duty to provide these staff with the employment, training and support required.

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 have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

At our last assessment we identified significant shortfalls in relation to the governance of the service. The issues we found had not been identified or addressed as the provider did not have any governance or audit systems in place.

At this assessment the provider told us they did not yet have a formal governance framework in place. They showed us a proposed monthly audit schedule but there was no evidence of any initial or baseline auditing having taken place

The provider had developed a number of policies and procedures. However, many of these required further work as they were not always appropriate to the service. We were not able to assess how these policies and procedures would be followed in practice as the service had not been providing a regulated activity.

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 understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Since the last assessment the provider had not been delivering a regulated activity due to an enforced suspension of their registration by the Care Quality Commission. During that time, other care providers had delivered care to the two people who were receiving the regulated activity personal care. The provider told us they had not made any contact with the services providing care to share information or to keep themselves updated on the health and wellbeing of the people in readiness for resuming care.

The provider told us that since our last assessment they had been receiving support from another care provider and had joined a local authority care association to improve their knowledge of local care matters.

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 focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider told us they were working on developing a formal governance framework which would help in identifying where learning and improvement was needed in the service. Audit and oversite systems were being developed but were not yet in use and there was no information about how results of audits would support learning and improvement.

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.