Ely Ear Care

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.
This is because the provider treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. People told us that they felt cared for and that their unique needs were respected. Patients could access care at a time when they needed it, including when they needed immediate care.
 

This service scored 75 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Patients we spoke to or that provided feedback told us that they felt cared for and came back to the service because they were treated with empathy and compassion.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy and dignity, with effective processes in place to protect their data.
 

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider gave examples of how people were supported if they needed to have additional adjustments to allow them to receive treatment. They were aware of particular conditions that would need extra time or consideration and identified how they could support this through increased time and adapted communication.
 

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients reported feeling supported to make informed decisions as they were given clear and detailed explanations of the proposed care and treatment. Feedback from patients highlighted that options were clearly explained, and they were given the time and support to make the right decision for their circumstances.
 

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us that they were supported compassionately when feeling distressed or frightened.

The provider had introduced an electronic booking system so that patients could have choice and control. This was working well and patients gave feedback that this had been a positive step. The service also had appointments available if someone required urgent care.
 

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The provider decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider explained how people were supported to continue to be cared for if they became housebound or were otherwise unable to come to the service. People who used the service told us that they were seen quickly, including times when more urgency was required.
Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. This also was supported by the feedback received from patients.
People told us that they were given time and information to make informed decisions about their proposed treatment.