rtwskin

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. People were involved in any assessment of their needs and goals. Reception staff discussed any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments with the person when booking their appointment.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. The doctor maintained and developed their knowledge of dermatological skin conditions through published sources of evidence and education. The nurse practitioner had recently completed additional postgraduate training in dermatology.

The service worked well across teams and services when appropriate.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The service worked with other services, for example, communicating with people’s NHS GP when appropriate. The service was able to direct people to diagnostic services (for example, for blood tests) or an independent pharmacy in the immediate area if required.

The service supported people to manage their condition and in this context their health and wellbeing. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The clinicians provided preventative advice to people on looking after their skin, for example on the importance of using sun protection.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met people’s expectations.

The service gathered feedback from people as the primary mechanism to monitor outcomes. The service was registered with a third-party service which published verified reviews. These covered both the medical and aesthetic services and showed people rated their care as ‘excellent’ (aggregate score of 4.9 out of 5). However, there was no overall programme of targeted quality improvement in place to use information about care and treatment to improve practice. We saw limited evidence of clinical audits, for example of surgical outcomes.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent and this was clearly recorded. The service used written consent forms as part of people’s treatment plans.