Archived: The Sanctum

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 people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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

We assessed 3 quality statements from this key question.

This service scored 11 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans did not fully reflect patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

There was no evidence that patients were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so that it was centred around them and their needs.

A lack of proper record keeping meant that it was not always recorded that, or clear whether, patients understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided.

The service had a system to capture people’s allergy status by way of a medical questionnaire. However, we saw that not everyone had completed one. No records of review of medical information had been made between treatment dates and there was nowhere in clinical records to show that allergy status had been acknowledged or reviewed prior to procedures being undertaken. This meant there was a risk that people might be given medicines they were allergic to.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

Due to the poor standard of record keeping it was not clear whether patients were given information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs or that it fully supported their rights and choices.

Information about people that was collected and shared met data protection legislation requirements.

There was a lack of recording to indicate whether patients were provided with clear and transparent information regarding their treatment options, however, there was a transparent pricing structure including contracts and charges.

Patients could give feedback about their experiences of care via the contact form on the provider’s website, or via social media.

The provider told us a log of complaints was kept, but they did not provide evidence of this on the day of our inspection.The provider’s website did not outline its complaints procedure, but we found evidence during the assessment that a policy existed to support people to complain. However, this policy was not accessible to all staff and was not embedded into practice. The manager was able to describe 1 complaint that had been resolved verbally.

There was a complaints policy, but it was unclear whether staff were familiar with it, as many policies within the service had not been embedded into practice.

Learning from complaints and concerns was not routinely used as an opportunity for improvement and there was no system that incorporated learning into daily practice.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.