You are here

Archived: The Calthorpe Clinic

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 January 2012
Date of Publication: 5 April 2012
Inspection Report published 5 April 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People receiving a service are involved in their care, and have their privacy and dignity respected. People are not adequately supported to express their preferences for the disposal of foetal tissue.

User experience

We talked with six people attending the clinic on the day of our first visit. Five of the six people told us they were happy with the service they received. People we spoke with during the visit were very satisfied with the information available and with how the staff explained everything to them once they had arrived for their treatments. One person told us ‘’I have been given lots of information, my confidentiality and privacy has been respected and I have been given advice about after care. I have no concerns about the clinic.’’ One person we spoke with did have some concerns. They said they had been at the clinic for a few hours but it had not been properly explained what was going to happen. They told us they had no idea how long they needed to be there or when they would be seen.

We found that people were supported to understand and make decisions about their care and treatment. People had the opportunity to discuss their treatment before providing their consent to treatment. When consent was given in advance of actual treatment, staff confirmed with people that they were happy to continue with the treatment.

We saw that information booklets had been produced that included treatment options, what people could expect before, during and after their appointments, family planning advice and emergency care advice. This information was also available on the provider’s web site.

There were appropriate procedures in place to ensure that foetal tissue was treated with respect but no information was routinely provided to women to advise that they were able to express their preferences. We were told that people’s requests about the disposal of foetal tissue would be discussed with them if they raised it.

We saw that there was also information of interest on display in the waiting areas of the clinic. Information included sexual health advice, counselling services and advice about domestic violence. There was also information aimed at younger people about services available for them. The clinic also makes arrangements for the use of an interpreting service for people using the service if English is not their first language.

People that were using the service had the option of having a chaperone during their appointments. Arrangements could also be made for an adult to accompany a young person. The registered manager told us that partners, friends or relatives could be with people in the waiting room until they were admitted for treatment. This was to protect the privacy of other people that were using the service at that time.

The clinic had systems in place to ensure the privacy and dignity of people using the

service. There were a number of private consultation and counselling rooms available. When these were in use, we saw staff close the doors. We also saw staff speaking to people who use the service with sensitivity and respect. Confidentiality was maintained throughout the time spent in the clinic. Client names were not called out whilst waiting in the reception areas; a colour coded numbering system was in use. All of the people attending the clinic during our visit told us that their privacy and confidentiality had been maintained.

We found that some changes to the environment had recently been made to protect people’s privacy. This included the installation of a new door on the ground floor that helped to protect the privacy of people coming from the theatre area of the clinic.

Other evidence

We have no other evidence for this outcome.