Health First Surrey

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 people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care and support reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that staff and leaders had an understanding of consent processes.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people had their needs assessed and we saw evidence of appropriate consent, however, there were limited processes and training in relation to patients who did not have the mental capacity to consent.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The service made sure people’s care was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

At the time of our inspection, we found that the system for identifying people with additional needs did not fully support the assessment of their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. The registered manager told us they had implemented a policy that included the identification of additional support needs at the point of booking in for an appointment, rather than afterwards. This was so that people’s needs could be identified, and they could be followed up with a phone call to discuss reasonable adjustments and how to meet their needs. However, the service website did not make it clear that the service was on an upper floor with no lift access or an option to provide the service on the ground floor.

We observed the phlebotomist asking people questions about their health and wellbeing as part of their procedure assessment processes, including any issues or concerns with blood taking in the past.

The service delivered people’s care with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, staff did not consistently do this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

There was clear evidence-based guidance detailed in policies on phlebotomy processes. These included reference to government guidance and that from professional bodies. However, some guidance in relation to other policies did not include all the relevant guidance. For example, guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO) on best practice in phlebotomy and the safe disposal of sharps to minimise the risk of needle stick injury was not followed safely. Used blood taking devices were placed in overfilled sharps bins and were visible outside of the opening of the container, presenting a risk of injury.

The service worked well across services to support people. Staff supported the process when people moved between different services.

The registered manager worked well with other services to ensure people’s needs were met. This included other clinics, professionals and couriers to ensure blood tests were carried out and samples transported safety and securely. They worked closely with a private GP practice on site, where people were signposted for follow up and other services.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing within the scope of the service provided.

The service provided information to people about the range of health tests that were available. This included services in which they collaborated with a private GP who rented a room in the same building to make services available to people who wished to access health screening. While the majority of people accessed the phlebotomy service direct from other services or practitioners who had already given them the information about tests, we saw that information provided by Health First Surrey included measures to ensure people understood the tests being undertaken.

Health First Surrey is an independent health service. They provide a phlebotomy service where they carry out blood tests to support the diagnosis of a wide range of health symptoms and characteristics. The service is operated by the registered manager who is the phlebotomist for the service. This quality statement is not relevant for this service as people were seen for one off blood test appointments and their use of the service did not include monitoring and improving their outcomes.

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

People were given information about their blood tests prior to their appointment. We observed the registered manager providing information and allowing people time to ask questions during their appointment. Informed consent was obtained appropriately.

The registered manager did not have evidence of completing training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005) or required training in learning disability and autism. In addition, there was no reference to people who did not have mental capacity to make decisions within the service’s consent policy.