Active Care Group Supported Services

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent and there was further time required to embed the culture in the service.

This service scored 61 (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 always have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Senior management were already aware of some of the concerns around the culture in 1 of the supported living services and had started addressing these. Where we identified a member of staff using unkind language to describe 1 person, the provider took immediate action but there was further time required to embed the positive culture consistently within the service. In the same supported living service, feedback from people, their relatives and staff was mixed and generally reflected that the service had improved but that this progress had been slow and that there were still shortfalls that we identified during this assessment. Following our site visits, the provider completed an audit of the culture in this service and presented a clear action plan which involved human resources specialists, enhanced training for staff and an external expert by experience to gather people’s views.

In the remaining 3 supported living services, we found a positive culture and shared direction. One person told us, “There’s nothing I would change. [Manager] says I’m available whenever you need me.” One relative told us of the recent improvements, “They have started [staff] taking people out again. That had fallen away for a long time.” A member of staff told us, “Things have got better since last time (last inspection).”

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service was undergoing wider restructuring which meant some of the shortfalls we found in 1 supported living service had already been identified by the provider. The provider had systems in place to address our concerns and ensure they had effective oversight of the service. When we highlighted concerns in relation to the culture in this supported living service, they deployed an experienced operations director to oversee the service. The operations director communicated with us throughout and provided us with assurances that concerns were actively being addressed.

Staff told us they generally felt supported by the provider in 3 supported living services and knew their roles and responsibilities. We found in 1 service that staff were not always fully aware of their responsibilities and were not always able to tell us why they were supporting people, for example in relation to people’s physical needs. When we highlighted this to the manager, we saw action was taken immediately to address this. There was further time required to embed the changes in the service.

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

Whilst we saw in records that staff had worked with the local community to achieve positive outcomes for people, we received feedback that partnership working was not always effective in 1 supported living service. We found people had been supported to undertake volunteering opportunities, such as working in a local charity shop and staff worked with the local pharmacy to ensure medicines were reviewed. We received feedback from visiting professionals which was mixed. Comments included, “Outstanding tasks from previous reviews have not always been completed and need to be carried over (in relation to supporting a person to apply for a bus pass)” and comments acknowledging the improvements such as, “The manager introduced [themselves] on my arrival for the review, this was a new experience from previous reviews. [Manager] also joined the review towards the end of the meeting to ask if there were any concerns that needed to be raised.”

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

Whilst the provider had a service improvement plan in place which listed who was accountable to complete different actions, this was not always effective in addressing shortfalls in a timely way. We found some of the shortfalls in relation to the culture in the service and effective care planning. The provider’s quality assurance audit from February 2025 had identified that people did not always receive person-centred care, such as reviewing goals and outcomes. We found that whilst this had improved and only affected 1 supported living service, further work was required to demonstrate that the improvements were embedded consistently.

Staff told us they were not always aware of learning that was taking place across the organisation. They told us that learning was focused on the supported living service they worked in. One member of staff commented, “We don’t meet each other from other services. We don’t really learn from other services, we try to learn from each other here.” Another member of staff told us, “We don’t really share what we do here. We don’t really hear what they’ve done.” When we informed the provider they immediately changed the structure to ensure that services could learn from each other effectively and share good practices with staff. The provider told us this was already taking place within the wider organisation but there was further time required to ensure staff felt consistently involved.