Updated 13 April 2026
We carried out a responsive assessment at South East Supported Living between the 14 April and 22 May 2026. The assessment was prompted due to concerns raised to CQC in relation to restrictive practices, consent, medicines safety, governance, workplace culture within the service and the age of the service’s rating.
South East Supported Living is a service providing care for older people, younger adults, dementia, mental health, people with an eating disorder, sensory impairment, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disability of people detained under the Mental Health Act. The service consists of 4 supported living services located across 2 geographical areas, managed by 2 service managers and 1 registered manager. At the time of the assessment, 20 people were using the service. CQC only inspects where people are receiving the regulated activity personal care. We assessed the service in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to determine whether people with a learning disability and autistic people were supported with respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence, and good access to their local communities that most people take for granted.
The provider was in breach of 4 regulations relating to person-centred care, need for consent, safe care and treatment and good governance.
The provider did not always evidence people were consistently involved in planning their care. Care plans and risk assessments were not always robust, up to date or person-centred, and did not consistently provide clear guidance for staff. Records did not always include measurable outcomes to support people’s independence, and identified goals were not consistently recorded or reviewed.
Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not always been completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The provider did not always evidence that systems to support safe care and treatment were effective. Environmental risks which posed a potential hazard had not always been identified, addressed or escalated to people’s landlords. Medicines management processes were not consistently robust, and safeguarding systems did not always ensure concerns were clearly identified or appropriately escalated, reducing assurance that risks were safely managed.
The provider did not always evidence effective governance systems. Whilst staff reported feeling supported by local managers, there were concerns about limited visibility and communication from senior leaders. Governance processes were not consistently effective in identifying, monitoring and addressing risks and areas for improvement identified during this assessment.
Staff were observed to be kind, caring and respectful in their interactions with people. They demonstrated a good understanding of individuals' needs, preferences and routines.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.