South Westminster Centre for Health Also known as South Westminster Centre

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 looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. This is the first inspection for 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 people using the service was positive. People said they were involved in any assessment of their needs. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff in referring practices made the service aware in advance of any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for an interpreter.
 

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.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. There were regular online updates and newsletters. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.
 

The service worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The clinicians updated people’s electronic medical records and their consultation notes were accessible to the person’s own GP practice team. People attending the additional or extended access service for whom further follow-up was required were referred to their own GP to carry out these actions.
 

The services we reviewed focused on providing primary care consultations to people with an acute problem or providing condition-specific investigations, treatment and referral. Within this context, the clinicians supported people to manage their health and wellbeing by providing advice where this was relevant to the issue being discussed. HCL was also carrying out a wider programme of activity aiming to tackle health inequalities across Westminster by taking a joined-up approach to people’s circumstances and health working in partnership with other agencies and teams.

The service monitored people’s care and treatment. They ensured that outcomes met clinical expectations and the expectations of people using the service.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used HCL services experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. For example, the dermatology clinic could demonstrate 75% fewer referrals to secondary care following the introduction of the HCL clinic. People were seen at the clinic by GPs with an accredited qualification in dermatology and access to consultant support.
 

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded where appropriate.