Sister Kate Ltd

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 the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

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 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.

Staff completed an assessment at the beginning of each person’s visit to the service and reviewed the information in the assessment at any subsequent visit. This included identifying the presenting complaint; the person’s medical history, potential infections or other risks.

Appointments were 30 minutes, which provided sufficient time for assessment and treatment. The fees were clearly displayed on the provider website and people advised verbally of the cost when booking over the telephone. However, the fees were not displayed in the clinic.

The provider went to a local specialist college to see young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The provider told us the young people were more relaxed when seen in a familiar environment with their own support staff.

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

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The provider planned and organised services, so they met the changing needs of the local population. The service was open to anyone, regardless of where they lived, although the majority of people who attended the main site lived locally. The provider also provided satellite clinics in Shrewsbury, Wem and Aberystwyth.

The provider held a contract with the local Integrated Commissioning Board (ICB) to deliver services for people registered a local GP practice. They also delivered services to young people at a local specialist collage and workers at a local manufacturer.

Facilities and premises were appropriate for the service being delivered. The service was on a business park accessible by bus and car. The service was inclusive and took account of people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help people access services.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that could be tailored to individual needs.

Staff showed people the equipment used and explained the processes. There were pictures, models and written information available to assist with explanations. Equipment used for micro suction was demonstrated so people could feel and hear what it sounded like before the procedure. Education was provided on ear functions and risk of procedures were explained.

If people required further treatment, the provider directed them to their GP. They wrote to the person’s GP with their findings and requested follow up appointment where appropriate.

The provider had an established website that contained information about their services. People were advised to use olive oil or oil-based ear drops for ear wax softening minimally 2-3 days prior to treatment. Clear pricing information and contact details for booking appointments was also available on the website but was not displayed within the clinic.

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

The provider had a process for managing and reviewing complaints. Although, the complaints procedure contained details of how to escalate concerns for NHS funded care, it did not include details of relevant organisations for privately funded care. No complaints had been received about the service.

People used online platforms to leave feedback about the service. There were also feedback forms for people to complete. As part of the NHS contract, the provider submitted details of people’s feedback to the ICB. Information was on display about how to leave feedback about the service to the CQC.

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

The service operated Monday to Friday. People could request appointments in person, via the telephone, email or website. Online appointment booking was available for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. People were able to see appointments to book, so they could select the most convenient one for them as well as their preferred location. The satellite and NHS clinics operated once a month.

The service was available to both adults and children over the age of 6 years. Appointments were often available the same day or within a few days and people were offered appointments that were convenient to them. Home visits were carried out on request. Requests for appointments were managed and responded to at the earliest opportunity.

There was level entry to the service, and an accessible toilet was available.

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

Sister Kate Ltd is an independent health service providing ear micro suction. This quality statement is not relevant for this service.