The Fertility & Gynaecology Academy

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

The service responded to patients’ needs and patients who used the service were actively involved in planning and delivering their care. Patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances. Patients could provide feedback and raise concerns. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The last assessment of this service on 16 January 2014 was under an old methodology and was not rated. This is the first time this service had been rated. We rated responsive as good.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people.

The service had a patient support standard operating procedure (SOP) requiring staff to adhere to the SOP with every patient contact, including tailoring care to different patient groups and an awareness of different experiences patients might have had in the past. The SOP referred to national guidance and the code of practice of other regulators.

Staff empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. Patients told us they did not feel pressurised into making any decision and were given information about the options available to them. If this included undergoing treatment at another provider, the service would arrange for clinical notes to be sent to the ongoing care provider.

We reviewed patient records which indicated person-centred care with choice and opportunities to have counselling and a chaperone. The registered manager told us counselling was included in the treatment package if patients decided to take treatment further. This meant patients could independently discuss their options helping them make the best decisions about their care. Patients were also advised to review the HFEA website for different support groups to engage with.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people seeking their treatment.

The clinic had established relationships in the wider health community local to the clinic. They worked with local pharmacies to ensure they stocked medication the service prescribed for patients. This was important as some medication was time sensitive and patients needed access to medications quickly. Patients could collect medicines immediately without having to wait for them to be ordered meaning their treatment wasn’t delayed.

The clinic offered a service to different patient groups all needing individualised care. Staff we spoke with recognised the difficulties different patient groups experienced. For example, the service had a surrogacy SOP, recognising patients will all have different needs.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff could access a language line in order to communicate with patients who did not speak English. Staff told us this was crucial for patients to understand the information being given to them. They did not need to use this service often as they didn’t not have many patients who did not speak English and staff could not remember the last time it was needed. Leaders told us they had a contract in place should an interpreter be required and this service could be offered over the telephone or in person with prior arrangement.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. Over the last 12 months the service had not needed to notify the CQC of any event. The quality manager told us they complied with HFEA regulations and submitted data regularly as part of maintaining their licence to practice.

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 had received zero complaints from patients about activity regulated by the CQC over the last 12 months. The service was not a member of an independent organisation to review patient complaints, but the quality manager told us they worked in line with the regulators and any concerns raised by the regulators would be reviewed and action taken where necessary. The CQC had received zero complaints about this service over the last 12 months.

The service had a patient support policy which advised staff to listen to patients complaints and feedback and apologise for any distress whether staff believed the complaint was valid. Staff we spoke with told us how they would deal with any complaint immediately by speaking with the patient and trying to understand what had gone wrong, escalating concerns where necessary.

Not all patients we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint but felt comfortable to do so if they needed. They told us they had the contact details for the clinic and would call if they had any concerns. The service did not have information on their website about how to make a complaint which might make patients feel more uncomfortable about making a complaint if they needed to.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when they arrived for their appointment. Patients had an initial consultation to determine what their needs were and whether they could be met by the clinic. Patients told us they did not feel pressured into making any decisions.

Staff told us they monitored and followed up any people who did not attend their appointments and rescheduled their appointments promptly to ensure their treatment schedules were not disrupted.

Staff and leaders did not always act to ensure people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes received equitable care. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider had not undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. This meant they were not assured all policies and procedures complied with the Equality Act identifying, mitigating or removing potential discrimination and promoting equality which could impact patient care.

Not all staff had received training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. This was included as part of the mandatory and statutory training course other staff had completed, but most staff had not completed this training and those who had it was now out of date. This meant staff might not provide care inline with the Equality Act or understand the need to do so.

People were supported to plan for life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment. Care plans we reviewed recorded patients’ decisions and options available for further treatment. Staff told us patients could access treatment when it suited them allowing them to consider all options available to them and gain second opinions if required.

Patients told us they were given clear instructions and were provided with information relating to follow up appointments. The clinic had an out of hours contact number for patients to call if they had any concerns.