South East Supported Living

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant most people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to need for consent.

This service scored 63 (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 they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care and wellbeing.

Care plans were regularly reviewed, however the quality and consistency of these reviews varied. Some records were up to date but lacked sufficient detail to guide staff effectively, while others had not been consistently updated to reflect people’s current needs. Staff feedback reflected this variation, with some reporting that care plans were not always kept up to date.

Feedback from people about their involvement in reviews was mixed, with some confirming they were involved and others unsure or reporting limited involvement. In addition, care planning records did not always provide clear or sufficiently detailed guidance in areas such as health monitoring, emotional wellbeing, and nutritional support. This meant people’s needs were not always clearly or consistently captured, and we could not be assured that care was consistently planned and delivered in line with their preferences and up-to-date needs.

Initial assessments were holistic and person-centred, and people and their relatives confirmed they were involved in these.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service worked proactively with external professionals, including the Community Learning Disability Team and the Occupational Therapists (OT) to ensure care was tailored to individual’s needs.

People told us they were supported to make choices about food and drink, and we saw people had access to food and drink as they wanted. Staff worked with people and health professionals where required to support nutritional needs, helping people maintain their wellbeing and independence.

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

Staff described a positive and supportive team culture, with most reporting effective communication and improved teamwork. There was a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, and staff work together to ensure continuity of care.

Professionals provided positive feedback about the service, noting that staff were approachable and proactive in sharing updates, particularly when people’s needs change. This supported effective partnership working and ensured care was responsive.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives through partnership working and person-centred approaches. Staff were able to clearly describe how they worked with other professionals to promote people’s health and wellbeing, including making timely referrals and engaging in collaborative working with healthcare partners.

People were supported to access appropriate health services, such as annual health checks, and some ongoing monitoring was evident in practice. For example, staff described how individuals received regular support to manage their health needs, including monitoring weight and encouraging balanced nutrition.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individual needs and used personalised strategies to support people. For example, 1 person had been supported to stabilise their weight through ongoing monitoring and appropriate support. Another person had been supported with the use of a visual prompt to support them to eat safely and at an appropriate pace.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. Care plans did not always contain clear, measurable outcomes or detailed guidance to support progression and independence. For example, one person’s plan referred to them developing daily living skills but lacked timescales for review or clear criteria for measuring progress. This meant the provider could not be assured that opportunities to build independence would be fully supported.

Although people were encouraged to identify personal goals and aspirations, including those linked to independence, recording and follow-through were inconsistent. Systems to monitor, review and track progress were not sufficiently robust, meaning it was not always clear how support was adjusted over time or whether goals were being achieved. This meant people may not always receive consistent, well-coordinated support to achieve their desired outcomes.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Staff did not consistently follow the correct procedures for seeking and recording informed consent in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and records did not always show how people had been supported to understand and agree to decisions.

There was limited evidence that all restrictive practices were necessary, proportionate, and the least restrictive option. For example, one person was prevented from shopping independently without a clear rationale, and staff were not always aware of restrictions in place.

Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interests decisions were in place but lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate a decision-specific and robust process. Records did not clearly show what information had been provided, how understanding was supported, or how conclusions were reached. This increased the risk that people’s rights were not always upheld and that decisions may not be fully lawful, evidenced, or the least restrictive.

Staff were observed seeking consent appropriately in day-to-day care, demonstrating respectful and person-centred practice.