Feeding UnTied 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this new location. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

There were 6 quality statements in responsive that we assessed: person centred care, care provision, integration and continuity, providing information, listening to and involving patients, equity in access, equity in experience and outcomes. We found:

People were included in the decision-making process and provided with evidence-based options.

There was an aftercare service in place which provided advice and support for people after the frenulotomy procedure.

Systems were in place to advise caregivers of what to expect before the appointment and information was stored safely and in line with data protection.

Caregivers said they were unaware of how to formally raise a complaint if needed. However, the service website included the different methods of raising a complaint, including posting a printable form, completing this online or speaking with the registered manager directly. Caregivers felt they could approach the registered manager and were confident any concerns would be addressed.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Pre-assessment questionnaires identified all health concerns linked to the baby, including their medical history. The assessment completed at the consultation focused on a general health assessment of the baby, the feeding history and mouth/ palate assessment. The notes and plans following the appointment were based on the findings of the assessment and the outcome of the procedure.

Caregivers completed a questionnaire before the appointment, which ensured the registered manager was aware of any health needs before attending the appointment.

Following the initial Hazelbaker assessment, if this showed a baby was only borderline for requiring a tongue‑tie division, the registered manager would provide the caregiver with the choice of intervention. This included the option of safe, non‑invasive procedures such as craniosacral therapy. The registered manager provided the family with information to support them after the consultation.

People were overwhelmingly positive about how the registered manager communicated information. Caregivers felt the registered manager was extremely knowledgeable and communicated information in a way they could understand. One person said the registered manager was “thorough, knowledgeable and provided evidence‑based information”. Another caregiver said they were visually supported to understand the condition.

There was detailed information available on the website and the registered manager checked people understood the condition at the assessment. This included how to manage the risk of bleeding and preventing reformations from happening.

The registered manager assessed people to ensure they received the most appropriate care and support. The service made reasonable adjustments by accommodating individual needs. For example, one person said “When we first booked the appointment, we couldn’t do the procedure due to our son having thrush. The registered manager advised us on what to do, was patient and kept on following up with us to see whether the thrush had cleared”. Following the assessment, we received further information from the registered manager, confirming that if oral thrush was identified, the procedure would be postponed until the condition had been appropriately treated and resolved. Where any other unexpected oral abnormalities were identified, this would be communicated with healthcare professionals.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service provided remote support via email, text, or telephone for up to eight weeks following the consultation. Telephone contact details were included in the discharge instructions to ensure caregivers could easily access advice when needed. Additionally, an emergency letter was issued at the end of the appointment to support continuity of care when the service was closed. This letter offered hospital staff clear guidance on the advice given to the family after the procedure and identified who should review the baby if they presented at the hospital. People we spoke with confirmed that there was follow-up support, including text messaging, emails and telephone contact.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand and which met their communication needs. Information was accessible, safe and secure and supported rights and choices. There was advice from the Association of Tongue-Tie Practitioners (ATP) available on the website which caregivers could access before their appointment. This included information and pictures that illustrated what a tongue-tie was, the possible problems and how to treat the condition.

Information was tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, interpreting and translation for people who don’t speak English as a first language and for people with hearing difficulties who use British Sign Language. There was accessible information available for people who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services.

The service provided information for caregivers on its website, which included a link to a short video that showed the tongue exercises. This meant caregivers who learnt best by watching could follow the guidance more easily and support their baby’s care. The registered manager provided assistance via a breast anatomy model to further support feeding techniques and increase understanding.

The services website had a privacy policy which confirmed what personal data would be collected, stored and in what circumstances would be shared. Caregivers would confirm they were agreeable with this when completing the health questionnaire.

All notes from appointments were written up immediately after the appointment, with clear reasoning behind individual decisions and aftercare support. Caregivers were provided with a copy of their individual notes after their appointment, and these were placed in the PCHR.

Systems were in place to protect people’s rights and choices around information sharing. Information sharing and confidentiality forms were saved in the electronic patient system. Information about people was collected and shared met data protection legislation requirements.

The registered manager ensured patient personal information was secure. The registered manager completed their Information Governance refresher training in November 2025. The website included a full breakdown of the services offered, prices and the process if it was assessed that a tongue-tie would not be required following the consultation.

People received information in a timely way that met best practice standards, legal requirements and was tailored to individual need. The registered manager explained what would happen before any assessment or tongue‑tie procedure, which included the possible risks and benefits, and any alternatives. Information was communicated in a way that supported families, and written notes were shared with caregivers, showing what had been discussed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service offered an online link for submitting comments and complaints via email on the website. The website also provided a feedback survey and there is a Feedback / Complaint link in the footer of the website on every page.

The registered manager also had a complaint form available at the service, which included a Quick Response (QR) code that directed people to the online version. There were cards on display in reception, which provided details of how to contact the Care Quality Commission (CQC) should caregivers wish to escalate any concerns. People we spoke with felt confident to leave feedback, although were not fully aware of the formal process for making a complaint.

The service had an up to date complaints policy. The registered manager was open, honest, and consistently took time to listen to concerns. People reported the registered manager was professional and approachable, which gave them confidence that any issues they raised would be taken seriously. The registered manager responded to questions from people remotely that required further advice and support.

The complaints policy outlined how a caregiver’s complaint would be handled and included the timeline of when a response would be sent. The registered manager had an independent body in place if complaints could not be resolved.

The service had not received any complaints in the past 12 months. The registered manager was able to demonstrate how feedback was used to support continuous improvement. For example, when a caregiver highlighted one of the service forms duplicated information, the registered manager reviewed the document and amended it clearer and easier to understand.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Referrals could be made to the service using an online referral form or by contacting the service by telephone. People said that booking the online appointment was “straightforward”. The online booking process provided the opportunity for families to identify any reasonable adjustments that needed to be made before attending appointments. There was also a frequently asked questions section on the website to support caregivers before the appointment.

Appointments were offered quickly, and families were given clear information so they could make decisions prior to their appointments. The service was provided in an environment that was easy to access. Reasonable adjustments were made where needed, such as allowing extra time for babies with feeding complications or answering questions.

Prior to the recent change of location the registered manager considered the individual needs of caregivers. For example, they carried out checks to confirm the environment was accessible for all people, including those with mobility difficulties. This included step‑free entry, and onsite visitor and disabled parking. The clinic was suitable for all people using the service, as it was situated on the ground floor.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The registered manager actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager was up-to-date with their mandatory Equality, Diversity and Human Rights training. They had a good understanding of underrepresented groups who accessed their service. The service monitored outcomes of procedures by ensuring they were positive and consistent, and met both clinical and non-clinical expectations. The registered manager completed their equality and diversity refresher training in November 2025.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.