Olicana Healthcare Limited Also known as Olicana Healthcare

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 patient’s needs, and that the provider treated patients equally and without discrimination. We saw that the service was patient focused, and worked with them closely to meet their care needs. The service was accessible to patients, and delivered care in a timely manner.

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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to their needs. Care assessments reflected their needs, and if required the directors told us they would make individual adjustments to care and treatment based on these needs, such as providing interpretation services. A recent patient survey showed that all 10 respondents felt that they had been well informed about their care, and that their questions and concerns had been addressed.

This was a specialist treatment service and clearly understood the needs of the patients who approached them for care. We saw that care provided was flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, we were told that appointment dates and times were flexible if there was clinical capacity and availability. We saw the service had, when required, worked with other health and care organisations to plan and deliver care. The service due to its nature and size offered good continuity of care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Feedback from patients indicated they felt the service provided them with appropriate levels of information which allowed them to make choices regarding their care and treatment. This feedback also said the service answered their questions and concerns well. If required, the service could access translation and interpretation support.

The service gathered feedback from patients. This included direct verbal feedback, patient follow up contacts, and from a patient survey it had recently undertaken. Whilst it had not received any complaints since beginning operations it had procedures in place to deal with these and to share any learning. Feedback from patients indicated that they had treatment options discussed with them, and had been involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

As an independent health service, the provider had control over the numbers of patients who were able to access the service. The main limiting factor regarding capacity was the availability of the directors. The service operated Monday 8am to 10.30am, Tuesday 10 to 12.30am, Friday 2pm to 5pm, and Saturday 9am to 11am. However, the provider told us that if requested they could be more flexible with operating times to better meet the needs of the patient if they had capacity to do so. Due to the nature of the service most appointments and consultations were face to face. Feedback showed that 100% of respondents to a patient survey stated it was easy to schedule an appointment, and that they were seen in a timely manner. Feedback from a patient on our Give feedback on care informed us that the booking process was easy, and that aftercare was good. Other feedback from the survey indicated though that access to the consultation room, located on the first floor, could be difficult due to the steepness of the winding staircase. Patients could contact the service at any time via their website, and responses would be managed by the directors.

The service actively discussed with patients their treatment. This included discussions around suitability, treatment options, and expectations regarding outcomes. Feedback provided by patients who had used the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. The service treated patients equally and without discrimination. If after initial assessment it was felt the provider could not meet the needs of the patient, the service discussed alternate care and treatment options and signposted patients accordingly.

Patients were supported by the service throughout their care and treatment journey. Treatment options were outlined to patients, and were aligned to their needs moving forward. Advice was also given to patients regarding aftercare.