Archived: Central Medical Solutions

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 staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff 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 in April 2021.

This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 71 (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, and wellbeing needs with them.

Clinical staff used Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and templates at initial assessment and when conducting reviews, to support the review of people’s health and ensure their needs were met.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in and confident with the care and treatment provided.

Before our inspection, the service had begun piloting staff direct access to relevant medical history, via the Summary Care Record (SCR), for people at the point of initial prescription of weight‑loss medicines. This pilot was appropriately focused on people prescribed these medicines due to their higher potential for misuse, ensuring staff had verifiable clinical information to support safe and effective prescribing.

During the inspection, the SCR access arrangements were significantly expanded, strengthening the service’s ability to provide more reliable and ongoing monitoring for these patients.

Care was delivered and patients’ needs assessed in line with legislation, clinical standards, and evidence-based guidance, supported by pathways and tools.

The service offered doses or combinations of medicines that differed from the officially approved ones, such as off-label doses or compounded unlicensed medicines that were bespoke tailored to people’s specific needs, such as for dermatological conditions and erectile dysfunction.

We inspected 33 patient records covering the scope of care and treatment offered. Patient records we reviewed contained the necessary information and reflected appropriate standards of care.

Some clinical audits were effective and well embedded, where we saw clear actions and improvement. However, we saw some other audits outcomes were inconsistent or unclear such as prescribing for the management of herpes simplex virus infections and prescribing for acne in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. NICE produces evidence-based recommendations for the health and social care sector.

The service engaged subject matter experts and hospital consultants to optimise and inform care and treatment pathways design.

The service worked well across teams internally and with its partner pharmacy by sharing the necessary information and assessment of people’s needs. Staff shared information externally when needed, such as with a patients’ GP.

The service had built on arrangements for access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care and treatment, and to underpin the continuity of care.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, patients were given information and advice to support them with weight loss.

The service monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it.

Staff and online systems involved people in managing their medicines and helped them understand how to do so safely.

We reviewed data that from the service system that indicated patients’ clinical outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people.

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

People were required to consent to share information with their GP for weight-loss treatments and certain antimicrobial medicines. If patients refused consent to share information with the GP and this impacted the ability to safely prescribe, the service did not prescribe.