Leaf Somerset

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated outstanding. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently better than expected compared to similar services. People’s feedback described it as exceptional and distinctive.

This service scored 88 (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’s care and support was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them. An in-depth assessment procedure gathered information from a range of sources including families and health professionals to consider how the service could support the person safely. The assessment focused on the way the service could be tailored to meet the person’s specific needs. A family member said, “Leaf Somerset were a breath of fresh air, when they came in.” By collaborating with the individual's wider support network, the service ensured care was effective. This was achieved through transparent communication and a thorough understanding of both the individual’s and the family's needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed to maintain this balance.

The provider always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards. Nationally recognised training was used to support effective care delivery and ensure best practice guidance was followed. For example, in learning disabilities and autism, epilepsy, positive behaviour support and reducing physical interventions. Training focused on understanding people and looking to support people holistically. The provider had achieved national accreditation in autism for their service in 2025. This evidenced how the provider ensured they provided good quality care for people with autism.

Peoples care plans contained clear details about how they should be supported, including how staff should approach them in different situations. This meant that staff always understood and anticipated how best to support people to minimise or prevent distress. People could rely on staff to always ensure that they were able to thrive and meet their potential. Regular meetings with staff and bespoke training about individuals occurred. The provider was able to demonstrate specialist training had been sought. For example, around supporting people with sex education and relationships.

Support with people’s nutrition and hydration was included in their care plan. Staff knew people’s specific needs. This included any allergies and food preferences. Choking risks were assessed and managed if appropriate. People were supported to make choices about their food, be involved in food preparation if appropriate and encouraged in healthy eating.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Information was shared and communicated within the staff team effectively. Staff had access to the information they needed. Information was shared as appropriate with the multi-disciplinary team involved with the person and effective partnership working was promoted. A health and social care professional said, “They have communicated effectively, actively listened, and provided timely and constructive feedback as required.”

The provider always supported people to manage their health and well-being to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The provider recognised the importance of people’s health and well-being on their daily lives and the impact this had on people’s quality of life if not well managed. The providers proactive person-led approach, resulted in people accessing healthcare, where previous support had failed. One person had created information for staff about how they wanted to be supported. This explained how eating badly affected their mood. Care plans gave individual information about how people’s health was managed and described how people would communicate pain or discomfort. A staff member said, “[Name of person] is nonverbal we know when they are expressing pain.” Where people had a health condition or impairment information described how to support the person effectively. Information was regularly reviewed to ensure it was accurate and up to date.

The provider was committed to working as a coordinated team and had positive relationships with health professionals and people’s families. The service worked with them to ensure health outcomes for people were met. People were supported to receive annual health checks and attend routine appointments such as the dentist and optician. People were supported to access healthcare in individual ways they could manage. A family member said, “[Name of person] is healthy, staff support with GP appointments.” Another relative said, “[Name of person] started talking to staff about keeping fit. Staff are offering encouragement.”

Hospital passports were available should an emergency admission be required. These detailed people’s communication needs. People had been supported with hospital admissions. A relative said, “We could never get [Name of person] to hospital, but they have recently had tests at hospital.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Relatives told us people were happy with the support they received. It was evident how the support people had received had led to positive outcomes. For example, 1 person was not leaving their home at all before being supported by Leaf Somerset. Now, they were regularly accessing the community and engaging in a diverse range of activities. This enhanced their independence and enabled valuable new experiences to be gained. Their relative said, “[Name of person] hadn’t left the house for 6 months when Leaf Somerset took over. Now [Name of person] loves going out in the car and likes walking.”

People’s outcomes were reviewed on an individual and regular basis. Person centred goals and aspirations were worked towards and progress assessed. The staff team worked together to support people to achieve these goals which added value to people’s daily lives. For example, for 1 person, the support provided enabled them to leave hospital and return to live with their family.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s views and wishes were considered and reflected in their care plans. Consideration was given to how information was presented to enable people to make informed choices. A relative said, “Staff definitely offer choice.” People’s capacity was considered for specific areas of their care. Where restrictions were in place mental capacity assessments and associated best interest decisions were made in conjunction social work teams, families and relevant others.