Archived: Select Lifestyles Limited

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. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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 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.

The providers planned roadmap outlined plans to achieve improvement throughout 2026. However, although it highlighted areas for improvement information was not provided on how these statements would be achieved; no actions were identified and there was no information on who would be responsible for attaining each goal.

Since the previous assessment, changes had been made by leaders to provide services in line with the supported living model and right support, right care, right culture’ guidance, however, changes made were not consistently applied across all locations. Additionally, these changes meant people were not always receiving care equally and leaders continued to demonstrate they did not fully understand the supported living model.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support.

A lack of understanding of the importance of delivering an effective model of supported living meant we could not be assured people always received individual care in line this model of care.

However, leaders had begun implementing changes within people’s homes following meetings with the Local Authority and CQC. People and relatives were happy with how the company was managed. One relative told us, “I know I can phone the office to speak to a manager. They don’t really keep in touch with me. Everything is alright at the moment; it hasn’t been in the past”.

Care staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and when they needed to escalate concerns.

The team was aware of and understood their legal responsibilities around notifying CQC about any important events that had happened in the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Leaders told us they had been working with staff to foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There was a whistleblowing policy in place which staff were aware of and the procedures they needed to follow.

Staff feedback collected by the provider found staff were reportedly happier and staff we spoke with did not raise any concerns around poor staff culture. One staff member told us, “Management is approachable. Yes, I trust my concern will be listened to when I raise it and action taken.”

Relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to do so. In addition to a complaints policy the provider had an easy read version which was available for people they supported.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff completed equality, diversity and human rights training, and leaders offered reasonable adjustments for staff. The provider held regular appraisals with staff to ensure they had the opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns they had with management.

Leaders told us they had been actively working on improving staff culture in order to ensure people felt safe in their jobs.

During our visits, the staff we spoke with provided positive feedback about the culture and did not raise any additional issues.

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.

Although governance systems were in place and providers had consistently collected information on activities such as ongoing risk these systems were not being fully utilised to identify risks or how to mitigate them and were therefore not effective.

Systems were in place to identify how incidents occurred. However, information captured was not analysed to identify the root causes limiting the effectiveness of this process and the provider’s ability to use the information collected to improve the service. When discussed with leaders they told us no additional analysis took place to identify or understand the root causes of the identified incidents. This was a missed opportunity to drive service improvement which increased the risk of repeated incidents.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and worked in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. When incidents or accidents happened, internal procedures required staff to report them and engage with the relevant external stakeholders where appropriate.

Arrangements were in place to promote effective partnership working with other organisations. The provider used a multi-agency approach to support people’s care, involving other professionals whenever necessary. As part of this review, we contacted the Local Authority for feedback, who had been working closely with the provider to improve the service. They confirmed they will be continuing to work closely with the provider in order to ensure recent management and governance changes are fully embedded and the provider can deliver ongoing sustained improvement.

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.

Monitoring and information gathering systems were in place; however, these were not used effectively to identify potential trends or underlying root causes. In addition, some audit processes had only recently been introduced and had been completed for just one month. The available audit data contained gaps, which limited the provider’s ability to analyse information comprehensively and respond appropriately. As these processes were not yet fully embedded, we were not assured effective and consistent organisational learning was taking place.

Where learning had been identified, leaders informed us this was shared with staff to support improvement and staff we spoke with confirmed this was occurring. We saw evidence new systems had been implemented, and changes had been made since the previous assessment. Despite these changes, gaps remained, as outlined above.