The Cliffs Chiropractic Clinic

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 scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff told us they planned care that met the needs of local people and the communities served. Staff said they would try to be flexible in offering appointments to accommodate patient’s working hours.

Staff provided an evening clinic on Wednesdays for diagnostic imaging, meaning that patients requiring x-rays outside of working hours could be accommodated.

Leaders told us they planned and organised services so that the changing needs of the local population were met. We saw evidence of staff meeting minutes in which staff and leaders discussed patient appointment times. Staff told us new and follow up patients were able to dictate their preferred days and times for the radiology service, which was also discussed and actioned in team meetings.

A private car park was made available for patients. Access to the building was step-free. Hallways were wide so patients in wheelchairs could move easily.

The service did not provide NHS funded treatments.

Children under the age of 16 could be x-rayed, with approximately one in every 50 patients being under 16.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff told us they made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. For example, they provided orientation videos to inform patients about what to expect on their first and second visits.

Continuity of care was supported because patients generally remained with the same clinician, and a number of appointments could be booked in advance.

The services supported patients requiring additional support, including those living with dementia. For example, family members or friends were permitted to stand behind the screen with the radiographer and remain with the patient during x-rays. Lead aprons were available for those supporting the patient to protect them from unnecessary radiation exposure.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Patients’ initial contact with the service was usually by telephone. Staff informed patients of what to expect on their first visit, including estimated appointment duration, the possibility of diagnostic imaging, and any need to change clothing or wear a gown. Staff provided procedure costs and payment arrangements in advance.

The service has a website that was accessible. There were options to increase and decrease font size, and the contact details were provided.

The service provided information leaflets, however, there were no alternatives for those with communication difficulties. There was no access to translation services but leaders told us some staff were bilingual or multilingual and could support with translating.

We were unable to see staff working with patients on the day of the inspection as there were no scheduled diagnostic appointments. Therefore, we did not see if patients were provided with discharge summaries or aftercare leaflets.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Patients told us they knew how to complain or raise concerns. All patients we spoke to confirmed that they knew the process, and feedback was regularly requested throughout their treatment.

The provider had not received a diagnostic complaint in the last 12 months. The provider was not registered to an independent sector complaints adjudication service.

Feedback and concerns could be raised easily, and complaints would be treated seriously, investigated thoroughly, and lessons learned shared with staff.

Staff understood the complaints policy and how to manage complaints. Staff described the process, which involved contacting patients on the same day a complaint was received to offer a resolution. If unresolved, a meeting was arranged at the clinic, followed by a written response within two working days.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Patients told us they were seen promptly and communication was clear and concise. Staff said access to the building was step-free and if patients with mobility issues still needed support, staff would help patients on entering and exiting the building. People could access the service without physical barriers and reasonable adjustments were made to support accessibility.

Patients said it was easy to contact the service and staff communicated clearly about the care and treatment they were receiving. Patients said staff were supportive and listened to them.

Staff allocated diary slots daily for new patients, and appointment preferences were taken into account. Patients presenting as priorities, such as pregnant patients, individuals in distress, or those with loss of motor or sensory function, were prioritised.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Dedicated patient parking was provided in response to patient feedback. The car park was secured from a local charity, and the service raised funds for that charity.

The service provided step-free access to enter and exit the building.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Dedicated patient parking was provided in response to patient feedback. The car park was secured from a local charity, and the service raised funds for that charity.

The service provided step-free access to enter and exit the building.