Community Health and Eyecare Limited (CHEC - Worcester)

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 people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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. This was achieved through consultation, pre assessment calls and on the day of the procedure. Staff ensured through the daily huddle that all staff were aware of the needs of individual patients. This included the need for translation services or assistance. Consultants discussed the proposed treatment with patients and took account of their wishes.

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. NHS patients came from within the wider community of Worcester. Staff also lived in this community and therefore understood the challenges that these communities faced. Information was shared with the healthcare provider and the patient's GP as appropriate. Patients were discharged with a letter describing their surgery in case of any urgent concerns which took them into another provider to ensure they were well informed. The ophthalmology service also had an urgent telephone help line available to patients to support them with any post-surgery complications and advice. This was available 24 hours a day.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Leaflets provided complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff signposted patients to local services and treatments as necessary. There were posters on the walls informing patients how to complain should they wished to, and staff were approachable. One patient complained about a different service and the clinic manager took this up with the service concerned. We saw that paper records were stored in locked cupboards and electronic devices were secured when not in use. Patients were supported by staff to complete any forms that were required. Forms were mainly held on a tablet so could be enlarged for patients with limited vision.

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 service had 12 complaints between October 2024 to August 2025. Complaints were dealt with promptly and discussed at all levels to ensure that if any learning could be devised from a complaint this was shared across all sites. This promoted a no blame culture.

Senior managers told us that complaints were generally about administrative errors occurring. Complaint letters confirmed this. Patients complained that administrative processes were not always explained to them. Response letters apologised and contained appropriate information to explain the situation and address the concerns raised. Quality bulletins were produced monthly and these contained information on complaints received and any learning identified from them.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service and staff made sure they made reasonable adjustments for patients. Whilst there were medical staff available on the day of procedure there was an on-call service which ensured that anyone could contact a health care professional should they have any concerns. This service was available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If medical advice indicated an appointment was necessary, the on-call clinic manager could schedule the patient to be seen. Staff ensured that discharge arrangements were safe and applicable to the patient’s needs. This included the provision of Home to Hospital transport for those who required this due to medications used in the procedure.

The service was accessible for patients with limited mobility. Wide corridors and step free access to the service which was all on one floor meant that patients who used walking aids or wheelchairs were able to access the service. The service was able to adapt to most patients’ individual needs, and this was assessed at preassessment. The electronic patient record system captured and flagged key accessibility and support needs, including the requirement for alternative communication aids or an interpreter, transport assistance, wheelchair access or mobility issues, hearing support such as a loop system, and any learning disabilities or vulnerabilities. Staff received training on autism and dementia to ensure they could respond appropriately, reduce communication barriers, and minimise behavioural triggers

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. They used this training to ensure the service met the needs of the patient. Patient demographic and outcome data are regularly reviewed to identify any disparities between patient groups. This includes analysis of waiting times, cancellations, and satisfaction levels among patients with disabilities or language barriers.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. Patients’ care and treatment was explained to them. Patients paying privately could choose between two lenses and this was explained to them as were the benefits of each. Those patients on NHS pathways were given an explanation of the treatment, the proposed benefits and how the benefits would be realised over time. Patients were also given information on how to contact support if required.