Q Leaf Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans were person centred and detailed information such as people’s life history, their likes and dislikes and what they wanted to achieve in life. Some people had requested either female or male only care staff, and where possible, this was facilitated by the registered manager. One relative told us, ‘The registered manager has been able to provide male carers, this has made [relative] more relaxed and better for their mental health’.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People told us they had regular staff the majority of the time unless there was sickness or holidays. People told us that new staff were introduced to them and senior staff regularly visited care calls to assess the competency of staff supporting them. People told us if there were any changes to their health, the senior staff worked with them to ensure their care plan was updated to reflect this.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care in line with the Accessible Information Standard. For example, care plans considered and detailed people’s accessibility and communication needs to ensure they could be met by staff supporting them, this included detailing any auditory or vision impairments. One person communicated through an electronic tablet, and this was documented in their care plan to ensure staff could communicate with people in their preferred method.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and can do so in a range of accessible ways. The provider had a complaints process in place and where a complaint had been made, the provider ensured they were investigated, actions taken where appropriate and a response to the complaint was given. People and their relatives told us that if they made a complaint, they feel they would be listened to and action taken would be taken by the registered manager.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access emergency care when it was needed. For example, when staff needed to call the emergency services for medical assistance this was documented in people’s daily notes, along with the reasons why. People were also supported by staff to carry out activities and hobbies that they enjoyed, such as going to the library.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support in response to this. For example, people shared that they wanted to plan for events and holidays where they would need the continued support of staff. The registered manager told us they were supporting people to achieve this, so where possible, the care they needed would not be barrier to people’s experiences and allow them to take part in events or activities that were meaningful to them.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The provider ensured end of life care planning was in place where necessary and people’s care plans detailed if ReSPECT forms and DNACPR’s were in place. ReSPECT is a broader process that creates a personalized recommendation for a person's clinical care in emergency situations, while DNACPR specifically focuses on whether or not to attempt resuscitation if a person's heart or breathing stops.