The Mary How Trust

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

The service delivered flexible, person-centred care that responded to people’s individual needs. Staff promoted choice, made reasonable adjustments to improve access, provided information in accessible formats, and worked with other healthcare providers to support continuity of care. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and provided tailored information and support to help them understand and manage their health and wellbeing. 

Overall, people could access the service in ways that met their needs and personal circumstances.

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 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.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach by tailoring appointments to meet patients' individual circumstances and preferences. For patients travelling from outside the local area, the service arranged for nurse-led screening appointments and ultrasound screening appointments to take place on the same day, reducing the need for multiple journeys. Local patients could choose whether they wanted their appointments on the same day or on separate days. Staff provided information about the potential impact of each option on waiting times, helping patients decide which arrangement best suited their needs. This flexible approach reduced unnecessary travel and gave patients greater choice and control over how they accessed the service.

The service recognised and responded to the communication needs of individual patients. Staff identified patients who required additional support and recorded alerts on patient records, so all team members were aware of these needs. Patients could access interpreters, sign language support, translation services and alternative formats such as Braille, audio, large print and easy-read documents. By adapting information and communication methods to meet individual requirements, staff ensured patients could understand information about their care and actively participate in decisions about their care. 

Staff empowered patients by providing choice and involving them in decisions about how they accessed the service. Patients were offered different appointment options when booking, including the choice of attending screening appointments on the same day or on separate days. Staff explained the benefits and implications of each option, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on their own preferences and circumstances.

Staff also encouraged patients to share feedback and raise concerns verbally, by telephone, email or in writing, demonstrating the service's commitment to listening to patients and involving them in shaping the care they received.

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.

Staff delivered care in a flexible way that recognised individual circumstances and reduced barriers to accessing services. For example, staff arranged combined nurse-led and ultrasound screening appointments on the same day for patients travelling from outside the local area, reducing the need for multiple journeys. Local patients could choose whether to attend appointments on the same day or on separate days, allowing the service to adapt care delivery to individual preferences and circumstances.

The service supported choice by offering patients flexibility when booking appointments and by keeping them informed about waiting times and appointment availability. Local patients could choose to be contacted if last-minute appointments became available, helping them access care sooner if they wished. This approach enabled patients to make choices about how and when they accessed the service.

Staff promoted continuity of care through effective communication and coordinated follow-up processes. Following screening appointments, staff provided patients with comprehensive reports once all test results were available. With patients’ consent staff shared their reports with their GP to support ongoing care. The service followed up with GP practices to confirm receipt of reports, helping to ensure information was transferred effectively between providers and supporting joined-up care.

The service recognised and responded to patients' communication needs to support access to care and continuity throughout the screening pathway. Staff identified people who required additional support and recorded alerts on patient records, so all staff were aware of their needs. Patients could access interpreting services, translation support, and information in alternative formats, including large-print, audio, Braille and easy-read documents. By adapting communication methods to meet individual needs, staff helped patients with disabilities, sensory impairments or language needs to understand information, make informed choices and engage fully with their care.

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

The service had systems and processes to ensure information was handled appropriately and shared with relevant organisations when required. Following appointments, with patients’ consent, staff sent reports to their GP and actively checked that these had been received. This supported effective information sharing between healthcare providers and helped ensure continuity of care.

The service maintained effective information governance arrangements and protected the confidentiality of patient records. Staff recorded alerts on patient records for patients who required additional communication support, ensuring information was managed securely while enabling staff to provide appropriate and personalised care. Staff understood how to access and use patient information responsibly to support safe and effective service delivery.

Staff provided patients with information about the service, including how to raise concerns or make a complaint. Information was available through a variety of methods, including verbal discussions, written correspondence, email and the service's website. An easy-read complaints leaflet was available, to help patients understand their rights and how to provide feedback about the care they received.

The service recognised and responded to the communication needs of different patient groups. Staff identified patients who required additional communication support and arranged appropriate adjustments where necessary. This included access to interpreters, translation services, sign language support, audio formats, Braille, large-print documents and easy-read materials. These arrangements helped reduce communication barriers and enabled patients to access and understand information in a way that met their individual needs. This supported informed choice, involvement in care decisions and equitable access to the service.

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.

Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment and supported them to make informed choices. The service promoted an open culture where patients could raise concerns and share feedback about their experiences. Patients could raise concerns verbally, by telephone, email or in writing, and information about the complaints process was readily available, including an easy-read leaflet.

The service had not received any complaints in the previous 12 months. Despite this, staff were familiar with the complaints policy and could describe how concerns would be acknowledged, investigated and responded to. 

Staff explained that patients would receive timely feedback on the outcome of any complaint and information about further escalation routes if required. Managers told us they would share learning from complaints with staff through team meetings to support service improvement. The service reassured patients that raising concerns would not affect the care they received and encouraged people to speak up if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service.

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.

The service used effective arrangements to support timely and equitable access to screening. The service actively monitored waiting times and ensured patients were aware of expected waits, which were approximately 3 months for routine appointments. Patients were offered a choice of appointment dates and times when booking, supporting access to care in a way that met their individual needs.

The service worked flexibly to improve access and reduce inconvenience for patients. Those travelling from outside the local area were offered nurse-led and ultrasound screening appointments on the same day, reducing the need for multiple visits. Local patients could choose whether to attend both appointments on the same day or on separate days, allowing them to select the option that best suited their circumstances.

Managers closely monitored non-attendance rates, which remained very low. Patients living locally could choose to be added to a cancellation list and be contacted when last-minute appointments became available. This helped maximise appointment capacity, reduce waiting times and provide earlier access to care where possible.

The service also worked to keep cancelled appointments to a minimum. When cancellations were unavoidable, staff contacted patients individually, provided an explanation and offered the next available appointment. These arrangements demonstrated a proactive and flexible approach to helping patients access timely care and treatment.

The service also made reasonable adjustments for people with communication, language or accessibility needs, helping to ensure equitable access to screening services.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service fostered a culture in which patients were encouraged to share their views, concerns and feedback. Patients could provide feedback verbally, by telephone, email or in writing, and information about how to raise concerns was available in accessible formats. This supported an open and inclusive environment where people felt listened to and valued.

The service took steps to ensure people with additional needs were not disadvantaged when accessing care. Staff identified patients requiring communication support and made reasonable adjustments, including access to interpreters, translation services, sign language support, and information in easy-read, audio, Braille and large-print formats. These arrangements helped reduce communication barriers and supported equitable access to care.

Staff showed an understanding of the importance of equality, diversity and inclusion through their approach to patient care. They recognised individual communication needs and adapted their interactions, helping to ensure all patients could understand information, participate in decisions about their care and access services on an equal basis. This person-centred approach helped promote equitable experiences and reflected the service's commitment to respecting patients' rights and treating people fairly and inclusively.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their future health. Through preventative screening and early identification of potential health concerns, staff provided patients with information that enabled them to consider lifestyle changes, seek further medical advice and make informed choices about their ongoing care.

The service provided patients with detailed reports following their screening appointments and, with patients’ consent, shared these with their GP to support future healthcare planning. The service provided information in accessible formats and supported patients to understand their results, enabling them to take an active role in managing their future health and wellbeing.