St Clare Medical Centre

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. We assessed whether people were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant patients’ needs were met through good organisation and delivery. The health and care needs of patients were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. Patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We found evidence which indicated patients may not receive all the information they need to make an informed decision about their care, specifically in relation to the risks, complications and alternatives to different anaesthetic techniques. The consent forms used by the service could cause confusion to patients about the actual level of risk of their procedures.

However, care was flexible and designed to work in partnership with patients to respond to any changes in their needs to provide continuity. The managers and staff planned and delivered care reflecting individual needs and offered a range of options for appointment times and consultation methods. For example, we were told the service consistently adjusted appointments to accommodate patients’ travel arrangements. We also discussed patients who attended the clinic with psychological or emotional needs. The manager explained how these needs were assessed and how they referred patients to other services when required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

The clinic was able to open every day of the week, with procedures scheduled to suit patients’ needs. The manager told us their drive was “to provide a caring service, affordable and with great results”. The manager told us the demand of the services they provide has been steadily increasing lately and more local people were using the service. They told us they were in the planning stages of expanding the procedures they offer to attract different age groups.

The service had an admissions criteria policy which ensured all patients could access the service regardless of age, gender, race, religion, belief, or sexual orientation. Patients saw the same consultant for their pre-operative assessment and surgical procedure, ensuring continuity of care. During their stay, patients were looked after by the same team from admission to discharge.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information provided to patients did not always support effective decision‑making. The provider did not routinely include information about the types of anaesthesia during the pre‑assessment consultation, which meant patients did not always receive all the details they needed at an early stage to understand their options. However, the service had a clear process for discussing prices with patients, and costs were confirmed verbally and in writing following the pre‑assessment consultation. Information could be provided in different languages and translation services were available when required. Information governance processes ensured patient records were kept confidential and secure.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 recently updated the way in which it collected patients’ feedback. Patient feedback was reviewed to identify ideas for service improvement. Patients were informed about any changes made as a result of their feedback. Patients and their families could give feedback on the service and their treatment, and staff supported them to do so. The service had not received any complaints in the quarter prior to our inspection. The patient coordinator told us responding to and resolving complaints was always prioritised. The provider had a clear complaints policy; however, this was not available on their website. Staff were also encouraged to share feedback.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was available to patients who were medically suitable and able to fund their procedure. The premises were fully wheelchair accessible. A receptionist was available during working hours to assist with access. There was ample, free parking for those using the service. There was adequate clinical cover during working hours. A doctor could attend the recovery room quickly in an emergency.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 and leaders actively listened to patients most likely to experience inequality in care or outcomes and tailored support and treatment to meet their needs. The service promoted a culture where patients felt empowered to share their views and be involved in decisions about their care. Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights, ensuring care was delivered in a way respecting individual needs and protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

We did not inspect this quality statement as it was not relevant to the service provided by the organisation.