Knapton House

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 people were treated equally and without discrimination.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their treatment choices. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their individual needs, the expectations of treatment, and were involved in planning their treatments.

The provider spoke clearly about building relationships with people coming for treatments and delivering individual treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so treatments were joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider understood the potential of the health and treatment needs of people who chose to access the service.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were appropriate to people’s needs. They gave people appropriate details about their health and treatment options to enable them to make informed decisions about their treatment.

Information provided to people by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

It was easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their treatment, care, and support. This included online booking access through their website. They involved people in decisions about their treatments and told them when changes were made to meet their needs.

Although the provider had not received any complaints, we saw the service had a complaints policy and the provider explained how they would approach a complaint in line with their policy.

Staff were able to describe examples where learning from people’s comments had led to positive changes in service processes and patient experience. For example, online booking software for people to book appointments and correspond with the service.

From the feedback we reviewed, people reported timely access to initial assessment and treatment. Waiting times, delays and cancellations were minimal and managed appropriately.

The services provided were carried out over 2 floors, currently, the ear, nose and throat (ENT) and GP service was accessible on the ground floor, and audiology on the first floor. The service provider had a risk assessment to ask people needing to access the audiology facility if they could manage the stairs. Staff explained how this was part of the conversation with people before they attended the clinic for an audiology appointment.

The service provider told us they were planning to provide portable audiology equipment to enable appropriate testing to be undertaken within a ground-floor clinical room. Until the portable option was available, we were told people who could not safely access the upstairs facility would be signposted to alternative services.

Knapton House is a private multi-specialty medical outpatient clinic. Before delivering treatment, people attended for a consultation, where the provider discussed with them their treatment risks and benefits and answered any questions.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive, telling us they were treated equally and without discrimination.

This quality statement, about people’s long-term care and treatment decisions, is not relevant for this service. However, people were provided with information telling them what support post-appointment they may need and any future options.