Cognacity

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is our first inspection of the service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients and carers we spoke with said staff were polite, kind and respectful. Their feedback about staff was very positive overall. People told us that felt staff cared about them and listened to them. They described staff as friendly, non-judgmental and honest. One person said: “They have been fantastic. I can’t thank them enough”. Another told us that staff made them feel relaxed and never rushed. This feedback was echoed by organisations regularly working with the service. Their stakeholders described staff as polite, professional and welcoming.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care and treatment. Patients and carers told us that staff explained their treatments thoroughly. They said staff understood their individual needs. Most said they felt involved in reviewing their care and treatment.

Staff directed patients to other services when required. Some patients and carers shared examples of staff referring them for blood tests and physical health checks with their GPs or independent providers, and others to psychologists and therapists.

Consulting rooms were private and sound-proof, and appointments were on a one-to-one basis.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients and carers we spoke with said the staff understood their individual needs. They said the service was flexible in meeting their needs, for example in offering appointments to fit around their work or study.

The service made adjustments for disabled people. Although the premises were accessed by stairs, staff mitigated this by offering a ground floor consultation room to patients with accessibility needs identified at initial assessment. The service had a ramp available for wheelchair users to access the main entrance. Appointments could also be offered online or at the provider’s accessible location in Buckinghamshire.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had access to an interpreter service if required.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments and relevant services. However, most patients and carers we spoke with said they were not aware of the complaint process.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service received referrals from patients most of whom self-referred. Patients could request to work with male or female practitioners, if preferred. Staff documented patients’ choice to involve family and friends in their care, or whether they wished to decline this. With consent in place, staff updated families and carers involved in patients’ care and treatment about their progress.

We spoke with 8 patients and 5 carers. Their feedback was overall positive and some shared examples of how staff empowered them to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. For example, one person told us they felt fully informed about their treatment options and side effects by the prescriber.

Staff enabled patients to give feedback on the service they received, for example via annual surveys, suggestion box and a QR code. However, most patients and carers told us they had not been asked for feedback.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Some staff, patients and carers we spoke with shared examples of the service dealing with specific risk issues. For example, staff told us about referring a patient to an inpatient service, and some patients praised staff for being prompt and responsive when they contacted them with urgent health concerns.

However, we viewed the record of a patient who had presented at the service in distress. Despite advising the patient to attend AE due to the risks disclosed, staff had not documented offering any emotional support or checking on their welfare.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff we spoke with said they felt respected, supported and valued. They said they felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff could access support for their own physical and emotional health needs through the provider’s wellbeing offer, which included access to a healthcare app and income protection benefits. Staff sickness and absence rate was minimal.

The service shared a quarterly staff newsletter which celebrated staff successes and included information on wellbeing and mental health. The service hosted regular social and networking events for staff and quarterly events with external speakers.

Managers carried out an annual staff satisfaction survey and planned some actions in response to the feedback. Staff received training and annual appraisals.