Archived: RPM Health Clinic Warwick

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 assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question. This is the first inspection for this provider since their registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.
Overall, the provider ensured people were at the centre of their care and supported them to make the right treatment choices for their needs. The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of their population but did not have integrated care pathways with local NHS providers and GPs. The service provided a range of information to people in a variety of formats The provider enabled people to access the treatment they required and provided ways for them to feedback about their experience.
 

This service scored 71 (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 mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The provider ensured people understood their treatment options including any associated risks and benefits. They tailored people’s treatment program to their specific circumstances including declining treatment if they felt it was not safe or appropriate for that person.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The provider had seamless referral within the organisation for example referring people having treatment for acne to the counsellor. Communication between team members when this happened was frequent and information was shared effectively. The provider had clear criteria within their terms and conditions about when treatment would cease if people did not comply, did not attend scheduled reviews or purchased medications elsewhere for example, from abroad.
However, we found there was a lack of agreed and documented integrated care pathways into local NHS providers in relation to some of the more complex treatments the service provided. For example, they did not have any consultant dermatologist supervision of their practice and did not have access to the dermatology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings at the local NHS hospital. Attending MDTs is an opportunity for healthcare professionals to review clinical practice to maintain competence. NICE recommends healthcare professionals who perform minor skin surgery have a mentoring session monthly with a local dermatology specialist team linked to an MDT and attend four MDT meetings per year. We raised these concerns with the provider who told us that following our assessment they had contracted with a specialist GP who could provide clinical supervision and oversight. The provider also planned to employ a second GP experienced in minor surgery and had access to peer networks for advice and support digitally.
 

The provider supplied accurate and up-to-date information in a variety of formats which included links to online videos. We found some of the patient information lacked detail for example, information on the possible side effects of specific medicines used to treat acne. When we raised this with the provider they agreed to review and expand the patient information. The pricing structures the provider had implemented did not always encourage people to complete their full course of treatment and have a final review or to pay for histology following some minor surgery. When we raised our concerns about this the provider gave assurances that people made an informed decision based on the information the provider gave them about the risks and benefits.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We saw a complaints process was in place and there had been no complaints in the last year. The service reviewed feedback left online. At the time of our assessment there was no consistent system for collecting feedback on care and treatment however, the service was implementing a standard feedback form that would be sent to people on completion of their treatment.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access advice from their clinician rapidly via a messaging app.
The provider was located on the first floor of a building accessed by steps so was not accessible to people with reduced mobility. Procedures were in place to refer people with additional mobility requirements to the provider’s other locations which were accessible. This was made clear on the provider’s website.

Appointments were available one day a week at this site, the provider offered a broader range of appointment days at their other locations. Appointments were offered face to face and remotely between 8am and 6pm. The provider would accommodate appointments outside these hours if people required them.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The service aimed to provide equal, non-discriminatory access and treatment within the limitations of their staff. For example, the provider would not treat people with severe autism or learning disabilities because they did not have suitably trained staff with sufficient experience to be able to accommodate the additional needs of these people. The provider had access to interpreters including for British Sign Language (BSL) and where people had specific religious or cultural needs the service accommodated these.

People were supported to choose appropriate treatments. Where follow up treatment was required the service ensured that people were advised of this, suitable after care was arranged and their usual GP was informed.