Satis House

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.

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

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 felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews.

Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing.

The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber, through their Primary Care Network (PCN). Staff told us that there was a social prescriber who they accessed for people when required.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. For example, remote clinical searches conducted by a GP Specialist Advisor identified people who were prescribed disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDS). These are medicines used to treat inflammatory conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. They work by reducing inflammation and slowing the progression of disease. DMARDs require regular monitoring, such as blood tests, to identify potential side effects and ensure the medicine remains safe and appropriate for the person. We found all people had appropriate monitoring by the service. Furthermore, remote clinical searches identified people who had long term conditions, such as asthma, and had received appropriate were monitoring.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

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. For example, we reviewed records of people prescribed medicines subject to safety alerts issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We found the service had made appropriate contact and monitoring was in place. This helped ensure medicines related risks were identified and managed in a timely way.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. For example, National GP Patient Survey data showed us that 95% felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment, which is above the national average of 92%.

The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service explained how they conducted palliative care meetings with the wider multi-disciplinary team.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice met most of the national targets for childhood immunisations, however cervical screening targets were below. The service was aware of this and informed us of how the actions they had taken to address this for people who used the service. We saw a notice board that displayed information on screening and staff we spoke to informed us of how they invited people to access screening.

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. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.