PH Medics Limited

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

We looked for evidence that the provider involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. The provider regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was limited but positive. A text message system had recently been put in place to try and capture more feedback. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that the provider understood their individual and cultural needs. The service highlighted on the patients paper notes any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. The provider did not use an electronic notes system. Notes were reviewed during the time an appointment was scheduled and any flags were written on the front of the notes and highlighted at this point. The provider used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people. with previously undiagnosed conditions. There was a system in place for making and monitoring two week wait referrals.

The service 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 and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure the provider was up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well 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.

The service had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The provider worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. If patients were identified that needed extra long-term support with their health, they were encouraged to speak with their NHS GP who could more effectively provide this as the service did not provide long-term conditions management. The service would contact the patients NHS GP if consent was obtained.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice did not take part in national immunisation programmes or monitor long term conditions. They referred patients back to their NHS GP for these services. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation. At the time of the assessment, there were no patients with DNACPR decisions in place. There was a system in place for the patient to give consent for the service to contact their NHS GP. A system of checking photographic identification was in place and marked on the patient record to ensure a person's identity before treatment commenced.