Person-Centred Planning Reviews in Supported Living: Getting Beyond Annual Tick-Boxes
Person-centred planning reviews are frequently treated as annual events rather than active management tools. When this happens, plans drift away from reality and opportunities to adjust support are missed. This article sets out how to design reviews that genuinely strengthen person-centred planning and co-production while remaining practical for managers and staff. It also links review discipline to wider quality assurance and auditing processes so learning is captured and acted on.
Why traditional review cycles fail
Reviews often fail because:
- They rely heavily on narrative updates with limited evidence.
- They focus on whether plans exist, not whether they are working.
- They are too infrequent to manage risk or change proactively.
- Actions are agreed but not followed up.
Effective providers treat reviews as part of continuous oversight, with clear triggers, roles and outputs.
Designing a tiered review structure
A robust approach usually includes three layers:
- Micro-reviews: short, focused check-ins linked to specific outcomes or risks.
- Planned reviews: structured sessions at agreed intervals (e.g. quarterly).
- Trigger-based reviews: activated by incidents, deterioration, or significant change.
This avoids reliance on a single annual review to manage complex support needs.
Operational example 1: Quarterly outcome-led reviews
Context: A service holds annual reviews, but staff report uncertainty about whether outcomes remain relevant or achievable.
Support approach: The provider introduces quarterly outcome-led reviews focusing on three questions: what has changed, what evidence supports this, and what needs adjusting.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Keyworkers prepare a short evidence summary using daily records, incident trends and feedback. Reviews are time-limited (60 minutes) and actions are recorded with named leads and deadlines.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Plans show incremental updates rather than major rewrites. Staff report clearer priorities and inspectors can track decision-making over time.
Operational example 2: Trigger-based reviews after incidents
Context: Repeated incidents lead to reactive restrictions without structured review.
Support approach: The service introduces mandatory trigger reviews following any serious incident or pattern escalation.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Within five working days, a review is held focusing on antecedents, effectiveness of current strategies, and whether the plan still reflects the person’s preferences. Any restrictive measures are time-limited and scheduled for review.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Incident recurrence reduces and restrictive practices are reviewed promptly. Documentation shows clear rationale and proportionality.
Operational example 3: Involving the person meaningfully in reviews
Context: Reviews are technically compliant but inaccessible to the person.
Support approach: Reviews are split into two parts: a preparatory session using accessible tools and the formal review meeting.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff use visual summaries, “what’s working / not working” boards and supported decision-making tools. The person’s views are recorded verbatim and referenced during decision-making.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Review records clearly link decisions to the person’s expressed preferences, and feedback indicates increased understanding and engagement.
Governance and assurance controls
To ensure reviews remain effective:
- Managers audit a sample of reviews for evidence quality.
- Actions are tracked and escalated if overdue.
- Review outcomes inform training, supervision and service development.
Commissioner expectation
Expectation: Commissioners expect reviews to demonstrate learning, adaptation and proportional decision-making, particularly where risks or restrictions are involved.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)
Expectation: Inspectors expect reviews to be timely, person-centred and used to improve care and support, not simply to confirm paperwork compliance.
When reviews are structured, evidence-led and clearly linked to daily practice, person-centred planning becomes a living process rather than an annual formality.