Axis Care Group 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because initial assessments and care needs assessments did not always inform people’s care plans and risk assessments as they should have.

Prior to admission to the supported living service, each person underwent a comprehensive, person-centred assessment to ensure their needs could be safely and effectively met.

Assessments included evaluation of physical health, mental health, communication needs, daily living skills, risks, and social and emotional wellbeing. Information was gathered from the person, family members or advocates (where appropriate), and relevant professionals to ensure a holistic understanding of needs. However, the information obtained from such assessments was not always reflected well in people’s care plans and risk assessments, as outlined under the quality statement ‘involving people to manage risks.’

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The CQC’s ‘Right care, right support and right culture’ guidance emphasises how supported living services should adhere to the REACH (Rights, Environment, Accountability, Care, Health) supported living standards, but we did not see comprehensive evidence of how the service were achieving these standards. For example, more work was required to ensure care was person-centred including one-page profiles, information on what was important to the person, what people liked and admired about themselves and how best to support them.

Risks identified in nutritional assessments were not consistently reflected within care plans. For example, one person’s risks of malnutrition and dehydration were not clearly documented within their care plan.

Records relating to nutritional intake were inconsistent. Daily notes did not align with food charts, which meant it was unclear what the person had consumed. Accurate documentation is essential to ensure people receive care in line with their assessed needs.

Where a person was identified as requiring a minimum fluid intake of 1500ml per day due to high risk of dehydration, monitoring records showed they were not being offered this amount consistently. Fluid charts showed the person was rarely offered over a third of the recommended amount.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

People’s risk assessments detailed the different teams which were involved with the person’s care and allocated specific tasks to teams, ensuring contact details were indicated.

Staff confirmed having good working relationships with the other professionals involved within people’s care. The staff we spoke to were able to confirm specific names of staff including social workers and occupational therapists.

People’s daily notes showed how staff contacted external professionals when required including doctors and mental health teams.

However, it was unclear from care records and speaking to the provider, who had responsibility for overseeing and writing specialist risk assessments and care plans.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

People did not have health action plans in place when needed. This put people at risk of their health needs not being met. There was no evidence that annual health checks had been carried out by the GP or referrals for these had been made.

Staff were not always supporting people or documenting when they were supporting people with their oral care needs. In January 2026, only 10 entries were made regarding oral care for a person, 9 of which were declined. This meant we could not be assured, the person’s teeth were cleaned/attempted to be cleaned, despite this being part of their care needs.

However, staff were supporting people to attend healthcare appointments, supporting with specialised diets and encouraging activity for a person being supported.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider evidenced monthly meetings in which leaders and staff met to discuss people’s care and treatment with a vision to improve it. These could have been improved by ensuring people/relatives were invited.

A person we spoke with, told us, they were doing much better than they were with the care of the provider. They explained feeling much happier and being optimistic about the future.

Staff were knowledgeable about the risks associated with the people they supported and the importance of monitoring them. For example, a staff member told us how the person they regularly supported, was susceptible to pressure sores developing as they had limited mobility.

The provider did not always respect people’s rights when delivering care and treatment.

During a visit to a person’s home, it was observed that certain items were locked away. The provider was unable to provide evidence of any documented best interests decision’s meetings to support these restrictions.

A person’s PEEP needed updating as it stated the ‘customer’ had provided consent to the PEEP, despite them not having the capacity to make such an informed decision.

A person told us they were able to make their own decisions and felt respected by staff.

The provider evidenced consent forms being completed for care being provided, for medication administration to be undertaken, for the care and support plan to be stored in their home, for information sharing and photographic consent.