Performance Dashboards and KPIs for Supported Living Governance
In supported living, governance fails when leaders do not have a clear, current view of risk, quality and delivery. Dashboards and KPIs can solve this — but only if they reflect operational reality and are actively used, not simply produced. This article supports providers building robust governance and assurance oversight across different supported living service models, where risk, staffing and outcomes can vary significantly between locations.
The best dashboards help leaders answer three questions every week: What is changing? What needs attention now? What evidence shows improvement or deterioration?
What dashboards should achieve in supported living
Dashboards are governance tools, not marketing summaries. They should support decision-making and assurance by presenting a concise, consistent view of performance, risk and outcomes. In supported living, this typically means combining quality signals (e.g. safeguarding, medication errors) with operational signals (e.g. staffing stability, rota gaps) and outcome signals (e.g. progress against goals, community participation).
To be useful, dashboards must include:
- Clear definitions for each metric (what counts, what does not)
- Frequency (weekly, monthly) matched to risk level
- Named owners for data collection and review
- Thresholds for escalation (what triggers action)
Choosing KPIs that reflect real risk and quality
Providers often over-measure low-impact items and under-measure leading indicators. For supported living, the most defensible KPI sets include a balance of:
Safety and safeguarding indicators
Include incident frequency and severity, safeguarding alerts, missing person episodes, medication errors, and restrictive practice usage (where relevant). These should be normalised where possible (e.g. per 1,000 support hours) to avoid misleading comparisons.
Workforce and delivery indicators
Track sickness, vacancies, agency usage, rota fill rate, training compliance, supervision timeliness, and staff turnover. These often predict quality deterioration before incidents rise.
Outcome and experience indicators
Outcome reporting must avoid vague statements. Use measurable indicators such as progress against personal goals, participation frequency, tenancy sustainment, and service user feedback themes linked to actions taken.
Operational example 1: Weekly “quality huddle” dashboard
Context: A provider supporting 35 people across dispersed tenancies saw variable incident patterns between services and inconsistent escalation by local managers.
Support approach: Leaders implemented a weekly dashboard reviewed in a 30-minute quality huddle involving operational leads, the registered manager and a quality representative. The dashboard included: safeguarding alerts (new and open), medication errors, incidents by category, staff sickness, agency shifts, overdue supervisions, and any placement stability concerns.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Team leaders updated incident and staffing data every Friday by 12:00. The registered manager reviewed trends and flagged “amber” areas (e.g. repeated missed medication signatures) for immediate manager action. Where a threshold was met (e.g. two similar medication errors in a week), a targeted practice observation was scheduled within five working days.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Over three months, repeat medication errors reduced, supervision compliance increased, and managers escalated safeguarding concerns earlier. Evidence included trend charts and closed-loop action logs referencing the huddle decisions.
Operational example 2: KPI redesign after commissioner challenge
Context: A commissioner requested assurance after a rise in staffing instability and complaints. The provider’s existing KPI pack focused on training completion and policy compliance, but lacked live operational indicators.
Support approach: The provider redesigned KPIs around risk and delivery: rota fill rate, agency dependency, missed visits or late calls (where scheduled support applied), complaint themes and resolution times, and “early warning” indicators such as supervision gaps.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Operational leads were required to comment monthly on any KPI outside tolerance, including root cause, immediate controls, and longer-term corrective actions. This narrative formed part of the governance pack and was shared with the commissioner in review meetings.
How effectiveness was evidenced: The commissioner noted improved confidence because the pack showed issues early, tracked actions, and demonstrated stabilisation through month-on-month improvement in rota fill and reduced complaint recurrence.
Operational example 3: Restrictive practice governance metrics
Context: In a supported living service supporting people with behaviours of concern, leaders needed stronger oversight of restrictive interventions and de-escalation practice.
Support approach: The dashboard tracked restrictive practice frequency, trigger categories, antecedents, staff involved, injuries, and whether debriefs occurred within 24 hours. It also tracked PBS plan review dates and training refreshers.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Following any restrictive intervention, staff completed a short debrief template. Team leaders checked quality of recording and ensured any learning was shared at shift handovers. Monthly governance meetings reviewed patterns (e.g. incidents clustered around community transitions) and agreed preventative actions (e.g. rota adjustments, environmental changes, skill coaching).
How effectiveness was evidenced: Over time, data showed fewer interventions, improved debrief completion, and clearer links between preventative actions and reduced incident severity.
Commissioner expectation: Transparent performance and action
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect performance information that is credible, consistent and linked to action. They want evidence that providers identify emerging risk early (workforce instability, complaint themes, incident patterns) and implement controls. A dashboard without narrative, thresholds and tracked actions is unlikely to provide assurance.
Regulator expectation: Oversight, learning and improvement
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): CQC expects leaders to have “grip” on the service — understanding risks, acting on concerns, and learning from incidents. Inspectors often explore how providers use performance information to drive improvement, and whether repeated issues are addressed through governance and supervision.
Making dashboards usable, not burdensome
Dashboards should be short enough to be reviewed routinely and strong enough to withstand scrutiny. That means investing in data quality (definitions, checks, owners) and building the discipline of regular review, escalation and documented learning. In supported living, the strongest governance systems show clear links between performance signals, operational decisions, and improved outcomes for people.