Olicana Healthcare Limited Also known as Olicana Healthcare

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 saw evidence the service actively involved people in decisions about their care and treatment, and provided them with advice, support, and effective treatment. Health assessments were carried out to judge patient needs, and we saw treatments were appropriate to meet these needs. We saw from patient feedback that outcomes were positive. If required, the service worked with other health and care providers to deliver enhanced levels of care for their patients. Processes were in place for gaining patient consent in line with guidance and best practice.

This is the first assessment of 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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Feedback from patients using the service was positive. People felt involved in assessments of their needs, and felt confident that the service understood their individual needs. On booking, the service carried out an in-depth assessment of the patient which included their health history, and details regarding their presenting condition. Following this the service worked with them to discuss treatment options. Where the service identified that they could not support the patient they examined other routes such as referrals to other providers and signposting. If the patient required interpretation support the provider was able to organise this at a cost to the patient.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, from interviews and reviews of patient records we saw that guidance, including guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and specialist bodies such as the British Elbow and Shoulder Society, and the Royal College of Radiology had been followed. One of the directors was involved in the regional oversight of radiological standards. The service undertook clinical audits which assessed adherence to best practice guidance, and we saw from these audits that the service was compliant with this guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The service undertook detailed assessments of patients to identify the most appropriate treatment options for patients. Whilst this was a standalone independent health service, we saw evidence that they had collaborated with other health and care professionals, and when required had referred or signposted patients to more appropriate services to meet their needs. For example, referring patients for detailed imaging, and for more complex interventions.

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. The clinicians focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, and factors which impacted on the condition they had presented with such as weight management. Whilst not dealing with weight management directly, the service would discuss this as a factor, and could signpost to other supporting services.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement. They sought to achieve good clinical outcomes, which met the reasonable expectations of their patients. The service monitored patients after procedures had been undertaken. This was achieved via patients follow-ups, direct contacts from patients, and via patient surveys. From a recent survey patient responses were positive regarding the care and treatment they had received. All 10 patients surveyed stated that they had treatment options discussed with them, and had questions and concerns answered. In respect of direct outcomes 5 out of 10 patients who had undergone the non-surgical treatments provided by the service stated that they had experienced an improvement in their condition, and 5 had not seen a deterioration in their condition. The service also used clinical audits to assess and monitor standards and outcomes. Of 2 we examined we saw high overall levels of compliance. For example, an audit into antibiotic prophylaxis (antibiotics taken to prevent infection, rather than treat an infection) for Arthrosamid injections (a treatment for easing symptoms of knee pain caused by osteoarthritis) found that 5 out of 5 records audited showed that the correct prophylactic antibiotics had been prescribed, and had been given at the correct time pre procedure.

The provider clearly understood and applied legislation relating to consent. They told us that due to the nature of the service treatment and care was fully explained to patients, and this was corroborated by feedback we saw. Most treatment and care was delivered using implied consent. More formal written consent may be required and documented should this be identified, such as for sharing patient information with other organisations, or for more complex treatments. The directors had all received training in the assessment of mental capacity.