Health First Surrey

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 people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always 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 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.

We observed the phlebotomist adopting a clear person-centred approach to care. They checked in with the patient on arrival and during their appointment, answering questions and ensuring their comfort and identifying and addressing any concerns.

There were clear procedures for supporting patients to ensure they had appropriate medical input to manage their blood test results. Results were routinely shared with the referring clinician. People were asked for consent to share results information with their own NHS GP. Alternatively, they could be referred to an appointment with a private GP who rented a room from Health First Surrey.

The service did not fully understand the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities in order for care to be joined-up, flexible and supporting choice and continuity.

Patients seen by Health First Surrey were self-funding and generally signposted by other services or practitioners. The phlebotomist gave people the option to access a private GP service that rented a room within the service to discuss their blood test results and ongoing care.

The registered manager told us they had not yet seen patients with a learning disability. They had not completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion and they had not completed training in learning disability and autism awareness. At our inspection we found they did not have clear processes for identifying patients with protected characteristics at the point of booking. However, following our visit the registered manager shared with us an access and inclusion policy they had drafted that included identifying additional needs at the point of appointment booking. However, this was not evidenced on the service website. The policy included actions such as contacting the person to discuss reasonable adjustments to enable them to book an appointment.

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

There were leaflets available providing information on the service. The service website included a range of information on the types of blood tests available. In addition, there was information about private GP and health screening appointments. At the time of our inspection, we identified that the information was not consistently clear on which services were provided by which provider.

Following our inspection the registered manager told us they had updated the website to make this clearer. However, there were still inconsistencies that were potentially confusing for patients. For example, the website referred to samples being processed in house by a medical professional. In addition, the registered manager wore a uniform that stated they were a registered nurse. However, they were no longer a registered nurse and therefore not a medical professional. Cancellation processes were referred to as both 3 and 4 working days which was confusing. The website also referred to referring patients to the service’s private GPs, however, the private GP service was provided by a different registered provider. There was also reference within the privacy policy about offering a choice between male and female therapists whenever possible, however there was only one female phlebotomist within the service.

The registered manager told us they had not needed to provide written information in different language formats, but that they could provide this using translation services available on the internet. They also knew how to access local interpreting services if the need arose.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were given the time and opportunity to share feedback and ideas during their appointment. The registered manager monitored online feedback to help identify areas for improvement. Reviews were consistently positive, with patients stating they found the service to be professional, friendly and helpful.

There was a complaints policy that was shared on the service website. This included a clear complaints process such as local resolution and independent external adjudications should local resolution not be possible. The registered manager told us there had been no complaints about the service.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Appointments were available on a pre-bookable basis. Patients could book online through the service website appointment booking system or by phone where they could speak to an administrator.

Patients arrived at the location and announced their arrival through an intercom system. The service was on the second floor with no lift access. At the time of our inspection there was not a clear policy in place for making reasonable adjustments for people who may struggle to physically access the service. Following our inspection the registered manager provided us with a draft access and inclusion policy. This included a section on reasonable adjustments and evacuation and safety. However, it was not clear on the service website that disability access could be an issue for some patients, therefore there was a risk that a patient could book an appointment before realising they may not be able to access the service.

The registered manager actively listened to information about people and tailored their care and support in response to this.

Feedback was consistently positive about people’s experience of the service received.

Health First Surrey is an independent health service. They provide a phlebotomy service where they carry out blood sampling to support the diagnosis of a wide range of health symptoms and characteristics. The service is operated by the registered manager who is the only person working within the service.