The Whiteley Clinic London

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

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

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 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 usually sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

The service used The Whiteley Protocol, which placed the patient at the centre of all decisions and treatments. Instead of offering a one-size-fits-all approach, the protocol emphasised personalised care tailored to each patient’s unique needs. This commitment to individualised treatment plans ensured that every aspect of the patient’s condition was thoroughly evaluated, leading to more accurate diagnoses and highly effective treatment plans.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. The service had a formal arrangement with an external company for translation services for patients whose first language was not English. The service covered the cost of translation services at the time of diagnosis and treatment planning for any non-English speaking patients, and the service arranged this whenever language barriers were identified.

Refreshments including tea, coffee, water and individually wrapped biscuits were available for patients to help themselves to free of charge. As patients attending the clinic were normally leaving within 3 hours, more substantial food was not available. If patients were hungry after a procedure, they were encouraged to go to the nearby shop to buy something to eat. This encouraged them to walk and reduce the risk of developing deep vein thrombosis.

We reviewed 4 patient records and care plans to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. For example, patients were asked if they had any family history of various veins and if they had any significant illnesses or were on any medicines which might impact on their procedures. In addition, managers told us that consultants helped patients understand their condition more easily by having posters and drawings available to support explanations of diagnostic findings and treatment plans.

As per Royal College guidelines, private or self-pay patients were told about and knew all the planned and possible costs, including the costs of future surgery and dealing with possible complications. When a patient was responsible for paying the costs of their care or treatment, they were provided with a statement specifying the terms and conditions in respect of the services to be provided, including as to the amount and method of payment of fees. Where possible this was always provided in writing prior to the commencement of the services.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. Due to the location of the clinic being in Central London, the service saw and treated a diverse range of patients from all backgrounds and cultures and the service understood their health and care needs.

The service worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. For example, the service had recently been expanded to include a new pelvic pain centre which included 2 designated rooms. This centre was used specifically for the treatment of varicose veins found in the pelvis, which was found to affect mainly females. The service had a qualified and dedicated consultant gynaecologist and pelvic pain specialist to treat patients with this condition, including the use of transvaginal scanning.

Managers ensured that patients who did not attend appointments were contacted to make alternative arrangements.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service did not provide information in languages other than English, and we were not provided with evidence that information was accessible in alternative formats such as braille. The service had a patient information file in the reception area, which had contained detailed information about the surgical procedures and other key information. We asked if this information was available in languages other than English, but the service told us this was not available in other languages.

However, the service had a range of information available to patients, including leaflets on various surgical procedures, investigations and advice for maximising their health.

Information about the clinic, including the various varicose vein conditions and other conditions the service treated, was available on the service’s website and there was a member of staff with responsibility for keeping all information updated. The information on the service’s website also included the surgical and non-surgical treatment options available at the clinic, such as ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy used to close small varicose veins and endovenous laser therapy to treat varicose veins using a laser under local anaesthetic. The service’s website stated that all treatments available were minimally invasive or completely needle-free, often performed under local anaesthetic or no anaesthetic at all. This helped patients make informed decisions about their care and treatment. There was an enquiry form on the website to enable people to book a consultation.

Patients were given a booklet advising them how to prepare themselves for vein treatment at the service. This contained information about the medical and cosmetic reasons for treatment and also signposted patients to videos on the internet of the various treatments carried out, patient experiences and videos detailing the stages of recovery after surgery. The booklet was written in clear language that patients could easily understand.

The service generally made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service and staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were well informed about treatment plans.

The service gave patients information on how to complain or raise concerns. The service had a complaints policy, which was in date. The policy had details of the Independent Healthcare Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS), a third-party organisation where patients could escalate their complaints if they remained dissatisfied with the service’s response. This was in line with best practice for the escalation process of complaints in independent healthcare. There was 1 complaint that had been referred to ISCAS in line with the service’s complaints policy in the last 12 months.

The service had a complaints log and received a total of 2 complaints in the last 12 months. The key themes identified were clinical in nature and related to the immediate post-procedure recovery period and the patient’s dissatisfaction with the outcome. The complainant also raised concerns regarding perceived communication in relation to the expected post-recovery results. This was resolved locally by the service. Another complaint received was in relation to administrative and financial matters. This complaint was in progress at the time of our assessment of the service, which was in the process of having an internal independent review by the service.

The service reviewed all complaints, feedback and compliments monthly in clinical governance meetings, which were analysed for trends and learning, and used to improve patient safety, experience, and service quality. This ensured that learning was derived and improvements were made from each complaint.

The service actively encouraged feedback through reception and recovery, QR code systems, online reviews, and patient satisfaction surveys. We reviewed 4 patient satisfaction surveys, where the responses were generally positive and where patients felt listened to during their visits and recommended the service to others.

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

People could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly. People were given full information about their treatment options following their consultation.

Patients normally booked their surgical procedures and appointments on the telephone. However, the service told us that they were planning to launch in the near future an online booking system for consultations. They were planning to launch this at the same time as an online portal for patients to use, which would have details of their appointments, medical notes etc.

Managers worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments or operations cancelled at the last minute, managers made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible. The service considered the needs of patients in the local community, including those from protected characteristics such as disability by ensuring the clinic was easily accessible with step-free access. The service had a hearing loop available at reception. If patients had any individual needs, they notified the clinic in advance so that the clinic was made aware and so that delays in the clinic were mitigated.

Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. This information was used to inform service planning a delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback which enabled collection of information about equity of patients’ experiences and outcomes. For example, from patient satisfaction surveys and from patient audits and success rates from the last 12 months that the service carried out. This looked at patient demographics including the gender and age groups of people treated at the service.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. Staff had access to interpretation services and used them when required.

Discharge arrangements, including the use of a dedicated recovery area where patients were encouraged to mobilise after their procedures, optimised the outcomes for all patients, including those with protected characteristics. Where necessary, families/carers and community services were involved to encourage and support a return to the patient’s pre-admission condition.

Patients were usually supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care, with the support and involvement of their family or carer if they wished.

Staff discussed health lifestyles for going home and recovery from the patient's operation. They reinforced key information and gave written advice based on current best practice.

Discharge summaries were given to the patient to take home and for their GP and follow up appointments were made before discharge.