Reviewing and Updating Person-Centred Plans: A Governance-Led Approach
Person-centred plans that are not reviewed systematically become outdated, unsafe or irrelevant. In supported living, effective providers treat plan review as a governance function rather than an administrative task. Clear review cycles, triggers and oversight ensure that plans remain meaningful, lawful and aligned with daily practice. This approach underpins person-centred planning and co-production and strengthens accountability across supported living services.
Why review discipline matters
People’s needs, preferences and risks change over time. Without structured review, plans may:
- Fail to reflect new health or behavioural needs.
- Contain outdated risk controls.
- Ignore learning from incidents or complaints.
- Limit independence unnecessarily.
Review discipline ensures planning remains responsive rather than reactive.
Design a clear review framework
Effective review frameworks include:
- Scheduled reviews: at least annually, with more frequent reviews for complex needs.
- Trigger-based reviews: incidents, safeguarding concerns, hospital admissions, placement instability or significant life events.
- Defined roles: who leads the review, who contributes, and who signs off changes.
- Accessible involvement: ensuring the person can participate meaningfully.
Operational example 1: Reviewing plans after safeguarding concerns
Context: A safeguarding alert is raised due to financial exploitation. The existing plan mentions money support but lacks detail.
Support approach: A trigger-based review is convened involving the person, advocate, staff and manager.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The updated plan includes clear spending limits, staff prompts, community safety strategies and review dates. Staff receive updated guidance during handover and supervision.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Reduced safeguarding concerns, clearer staff responses, and documented review outcomes.
Operational example 2: Reviewing plans following positive outcomes
Context: A person achieves independence goals faster than expected.
Support approach: The review focuses on reducing support and enabling further growth.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff adjust prompts, reduce supervision and update risk assessments accordingly.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Increased independence without increased incidents, recorded through outcome tracking.
Operational example 3: Governance-led audit of plan quality
Context: Managers identify inconsistency in plan quality across services.
Support approach: A quarterly audit programme reviews plans against quality standards.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Findings are fed back to teams with targeted improvement actions and follow-up audits.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Improved audit scores, reduced inspection feedback and stronger staff confidence.
Commissioner expectation
Expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate robust review systems that respond to change, manage risk and evidence learning.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)
Expectation: Inspectors look for up-to-date plans that reflect people’s current needs and show evidence of review following significant events.
A governance-led approach to reviewing person-centred plans ensures they remain living documents that support safe, responsive and empowering support over time.