Q Leaf Care Limited

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. 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.

This service scored 61 (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 was aware of and working to improve the culture of the service. The provider had identified the risk of a closed culture and was taking action to ensure a closed culture did not develop. A closed culture is 'a poor culture that can lead to harm, including human rights breaches such as abuse'. In these services, people are more likely to be at risk of deliberate or unintentional harm. The provider ensured that effective disciplinary processes were in place when they identified that staff were not meeting the standards they required. The majority of staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager. People also told us they felt there was a positive atmosphere amongst the staff that delivered their care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. The registered manager was alert to any examples of poor culture that may affect the quality of the people’s care. For example, the registered manager identified a breach of personal data, and this was addressed quickly with the staff involved and appropriate action taken that was in line with their disciplinary processes.

The provider had processes in place, so people and staff had the freedom to speak up. The registered manager held staff meetings every 3 months, spot checks and competencies were carried out regularly, staff surveys were sent out and analysed and staff were able to speak to the manager in the office if they have any concerns. The majority of staff we spoke with told us they felt they were able to raise concerns, and appropriate action would be taken and they would be listened to.

Workforce equality and inclusion processes were not always effective. The provider was aware that improvements were needed regarding the culture amongst staff. The registered manager told us that staff were not always open when reporting incidents and accidents. Most staff felt supported by the senior leaders in the service, however some staff did not feel supported. One staff member told us, ‘I really enjoy working here and I always feel supported.’ However, another staff member told us, ‘I don’t feel supported, some staff are favoured over others.’ The provider was working with staff to try and improve the culture amongst staff.

Governance processes were not always effective to ensure recognised guidance understood and implemented. The provider had not implemented relevant or mandatory quality frameworks in relation to people with a learning disability and/or Autistic people. The registered manager was not aware of the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance. The RSRCRC outlines that we expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. However, the registered manager and staff were able demonstrate that people were supported to have choices and live as independently as possible. During the assessment the registered manager started to action on how they will implement the guidance.

The provider had governance processes in place. Audits were carried out to cover all aspects of the service such as care plan reviews, spot checks on staff and medicine audits. Where the registered manager had identified any issues, action was taken to address this.

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. The registered manager told us they use sources such as Skills for Care for specific training needs when they are identified. Skills for care is an organisation that works with employers, Government and partners to ensure social care has the right people, skills and support required to deliver the highest quality care and support now and in the future. The provider worked in partnership with the local authorities and shared learning from safeguarding incidents with staff.

The provider had not always focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. The provider had not made sufficient improvements from the last inspection to meet the requirements of a good rated service and continues to be requires improvement. Whilst areas still required improvements, the provider was able to evidence improvements they had made when issues were identified. For example, the registered manager told us a person had shared with them that some staff did not have the skills to prepare basic meals. The registered manager implemented basic cooking lessons for staff to ensure they could prepare and cook meals for people.