South East Supported Living

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 57 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding the challenges and needs of people and their communities. This included a clear focus on supporting people to live their best lives, promoting independence, choice, and meaningful experiences. The vision was understood by staff and reflected in the day-to-day culture of the service.

Leaders did not always demonstrate the level of capability required to maintain effective oversight of the service. They did not consistently recognise risks or shortfalls in practice, which meant some concerns were only identified during assessment rather than through leadership monitoring. This showed that leaders did not yet provide reliable assurance across all areas of the service.

However, there were clear examples of compassionate leadership at a local level. Staff spoke positively about one longer-standing service leader, describing them as approachable, supportive and responsive. Staff reported feeling listened to and valued and described a well-organised service with clear communication and accessible support. The interim service manager, although new in post, was also viewed positively for being visible, proactive and willing to seek advice.

There was also evidence of inclusive leadership within the service, with managers described as visible and engaging with both staff and people. However, this was not consistently experienced across all levels of the organisation, and feedback about senior leadership was mixed, with some staff reporting limited visibility or engagement.

Although leaders responded openly and constructively when concerns were raised, they did not always identify issues proactively. This meant that while elements of compassionate and inclusive leadership were evident, leaders were not consistently providing the level of oversight required to drive and sustain improvement.

Staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Staff described a range of ways to raise concerns, including speaking directly with managers, approaching shift leaders, or using anonymous reporting systems. Many staff said they felt encouraged to share their views and opinions within the service.

However, some staff feedback indicated that when concerns were escalated beyond the immediate team, responses were not always timely or clearly communicated. This reduced confidence that speaking up through formal processes would lead to action or meaningful change.

Overall, while an open culture was promoted at a local level, staff’s experience of speaking up was not consistently positive across the organisation.

The provider demonstrated a positive and inclusive culture at a local level; however, this was not always consistently experienced across the wider organisation.

Staff generally felt valued and supported, particularly by colleagues and immediate managers. They described a kind and inclusive team culture, with examples of flexible working arrangements and adjustments to support health and personal circumstances. Staff also shared positive experiences of wellbeing support, including financial assistance and regular check-ins from managers.

Feedback about senior leadership was mixed. Some staff felt supported and noted recent improvements in engagement, while others felt involvement was limited or still developing.

Overall, staff experienced a supportive and inclusive culture within their immediate teams, although this was not yet consistently reflected across all levels of the organisation.

Governance systems were not consistently effective in assessing, monitoring, and improving quality and safety. Although audits and quality assurance processes were in place, these had not identified all concerns found during the assessment, indicating gaps in oversight. Action plans and meeting records did not consistently demonstrate clear accountability, with limited evidence of progress tracking, timescales, or review of previous actions.

Records supporting staff performance, including supervision and development, were not always sufficiently detailed or outcome-focused, and policies relating to areas such as probation and performance management were not consistently followed in practice. Business continuity plans were also not consistently completed.

Systems introduced to improve practice were not always fully embedded or understood by staff, including medicines processes, and records did not consistently show that learning from incidents, audits, or feedback was effectively shared and implemented. Documentation relating to decision-making, including Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interests decisions, lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate how decisions had been reached, reducing assurance of effective oversight.

While feedback was gathered, this was not always effectively analysed or translated into clear improvements. Overall, governance arrangements did not provide sufficient assurance of safe, consistent, and high-quality care.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. One professional told us “Yes [do you feel the service works well with professionals], advocacy is requested where necessary” and another told us, “Every time I have suggested something we discuss the merits of the suggestion and act accordingly not in isolation as a team approach which is important”.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

The service action plan was not routinely updated or reviewed in a way that demonstrated progress, and key areas of learning were not clearly tracked through to completion. Some actions remained only partially addressed over extended periods, and the absence of clear updates made it difficult to understand what had been achieved or how learning had influenced service development. As a result, the provider could not show how identified learning translated into meaningful improvements or sustained changes in practice.

The registered manager was open to feedback and responded positively during the assessment, but learning was not yet applied in a reliable or sustained way.

The provider had elements of a learning culture, but these were not embedded well enough to demonstrate learning consistently informed service development or improved the quality of care.