The Solace SARC - Bicester

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed 2 quality statements under the effective key question Patients’ needs were systematically assessed and their care and treatment was delivered according to standards and evidence based practice. Staff understood the importance of seeking informed consent and always carefully explained to patients what their rights around consent were.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

Patient records we reviewed were detailed, contemporaneous and clearly outlined the care and treatment given by staff.

Patients attending the SARC received a comprehensive assessment of their needs including their mental and physical health, and post sexual assault health. Patients were fully assessed for risk factors such as domestic abuse, non-fatal strangulation and alcohol use so that any concerns could be identified, and support offered. Additional assessments were undertaken for children and young people in relation to their social care history, household composition and education.

Patients who attended the SARC frequently had specific care plans implemented to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach to their needs.

Self-harm risk assessments were also completed for patients to identify support needs when they left the service. Where appropriate, patients were provided with emergency medical and sexual health treatments following national guidance, and forensic samples were taken based on the patient’s account of what had happened to them.

The SARC had clear referral pathways in place to support patients’ holistic needs and records showed that appropriate onward referrals to other agencies such as independent sexual violence advisors, GPs, counselling services and genitourinary medicine clinics had been made. All patient referrals were then actively followed up by staff to ensure they had been received. Staff told us that 90% of patients were referred to a very responsive local counselling service, which did not have a waiting list, making it easily accessible.

All patients received a booklet following their attendance at the SARC outlining the care they had received, the medicines given and a list of referrals that had been made on their behalf. This booklet also contained helpful information about sources of support for both patients and their advocates.

A meeting was held every day to review each case that had been seen at the SARC and to ensure patients’ needs had been fully assessed, and the procedures had been followed correctly. In addition to this, regular peer reviews were undertaken, allowing for a more in-depth review of the care and treatment delivered to patients.

The judgement for Delivering evidence-based care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

We found staff understood the importance of seeking informed consent from patients. Patients’ capacity to give informed consent was actively assessed, with clear guidelines in place for staff about what to do if this was in doubt.

Signed consent for examination, treatment and the taking of and the storage of images was obtained in every patient record we reviewed. It was clear that staff had considered Gillick competence when supporting children and young people.

Staff repeatedly checked with patients throughout their forensic examination if they were happy to continue with it.