South Manchester Care Limited

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 46 (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.

Records did not demonstrate a person-centred approach. Care plans contained generic information, were often presented in list format, and focused on tasks rather than people's individual needs, preferences, strengths and outcomes. Information across records was fragmented and lacked clear links between key documents. The provider did not consistently integrate care plans provided by local authorities or positive behaviour support plans into its own records. Positive behaviour support plans often appeared to have been developed within an educational setting and did not always reflect people's current circumstances or support needs.

The provider did not ensure care records contained sufficient guidance to help staff recognise and respond to non-verbal communication. Daily records lacked meaningful information about people's wellbeing, emotional state and lived experiences. For example, staff recorded a child "looks alright" without describing their presentation, mood or overall wellbeing.

Care plans and risk assessments did not consistently reflect the frequency, severity or impact of distressed behaviours recorded in daily notes and incident reports. Although managers had communicated with local authorities regarding these behaviours, they had not always updated care planning documentation to reflect this information.

Throughout the assessment, we found limited evidence the principles of Right Support, Right Care and Right Culture were embedded in practice. People did not always receive personalised support, staff had not consistently completed required training, and management oversight of records was ineffective. The provider did not assess people's needs in a thorough or person-centred way, which limited its ability to deliver support which reflected people's individual needs, preferences, strengths and desired outcomes. These concerns had a significant impact across multiple areas of the assessment because person-centred planning and support underpin the delivery of safe, effective and high-quality care.

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

Records showed staff accompanied people to some healthcare appointments. However, records did not consistently identify whether family members attended, the purpose of appointments, outcomes discussed, actions required, or how information had been shared with relatives and professionals. Records also lacked details of follow-up appointments and ongoing treatment. These gaps reduced assurance that staff coordinated care effectively and maintained continuity of support.

The provider did not always ensure sufficient staff were available to deliver planned support. Relatives told us staff sometimes arrived late or failed to attend planned sessions, which affected the consistency of support people received.

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

For one young person, staff had developed accessible information including pictorial social stories, a shower routine, birthday plans, a weekly planner, feelings resources and information relating to a hospital visit. Records also included weekly goals designed to support the person's development and engagement. However, daily records did not consistently demonstrate planned activities had taken place. For example, records did not evidence completion of mindfulness sessions or life skills activities identified within care planning documents. We also identified inconsistencies between goals and activity schedules. One person's weekly goal stated they should attend swimming three times each week, but the weekly planner scheduled swimming on only two separate days.

One relative told us, "It would help to give(child) pictures, and I have just started to do it now and the care staff are going to do this." We saw care plans had already identified the use of pictorial aids as a support strategy, but we found no evidence within daily records staff had used them during support sessions.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care.

One relative described their frustration with the length of time taken to establish an effective care package. They told us the process had taken more than six months and involved numerous meetings with managers. Although they said recent improvements had been made, they continued to express concerns about staff arriving late. They explained the impact on their child, stating: "I said, if they are going to come late, let me know because I (get person ready) and they don’t come for a while (person) would get worked up. I just want them (support sessions) to go well." Two other relatives told us they had raised concerns with staffing availability directly with the local authority.

The provider acknowledged improvements were needed within its complaints process and shared an action plan dated July 2026 which set out planned improvements and actions to strengthen how concerns and complaints were managed.

The provider told us it had recently introduced a structured Service User and Family Feedback Questionnaire and was rolling this out across the service. Historically, the provider had gathered feedback through discussions with parents, families and representatives, together with compliments, complaints, care reviews and welfare calls.

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

People accessed meaningful community activities which reflected their interests and preferences. However, the provider missed opportunities to ensure concerns affecting people's safety and wellbeing were appropriately escalated. For example, staff did not always escalate significant issues such as missed medicines, faulty equipment, bruising or concerns relating to positioning. This increased the risk people would not receive timely support or intervention when concerns arose.

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

Managers did not routinely record, review or monitor outcomes following incidents. They did not consistently demonstrate effective oversight of post-incident management or evaluate whether interventions had improved people's experiences and outcomes.

These weaknesses resulted in missed opportunities to ensure activities were safe, meaningful and beneficial. They also limited opportunities to promote independence, social inclusion and a sense of belonging within the community. For one person, this meant opportunities to develop life skills were not fully explored. For others, missed support sessions prevented them from participating in their usual activities.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future care and support needs.

Care plans did not contain sufficient information to guide staff in responding to emergencies. Records provided limited direction about what constituted an emergency for an individual, how staff should respond and who they should contact. This increased the risk people would not receive appropriate care, treatment or medical support in a timely manner.

Records evidenced communication with the local authority regarding one person's transition to adult services, including involvement from both children's and adult services teams. However, care records did not demonstrate how staff were actively promoting the person's independence or preparing them for adulthood as part of the transition process.