Shirley Health Partnership

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 staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service following its relocation to new premises 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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reviewed in remote clinical searches reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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 service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare service. The service felt its long-standing clinical team further supported continuity of care for the people who used the service and had reduced reliance on locum staff.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records. There was a portable hearing loop for people with hearing impairments and a range of communication formats, including large print and easy-read materials.

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 also supported carers by providing information and guidance to help them manage the care of the people they supported, ensuring they were included in relevant discussions.

The service had a clear complaints process, supported by a designated complaints lead and an accompanying policy. Information on how to make a complaint was available on the website. Complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy, with apologies provided where appropriate and signposting to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman when required. We reviewed a sample of complaints and found they had been managed appropriately.

We reviewed 2 complaints the service had received which were both managed according to the service’s policy, with acknowledgements, findings, response letters and learning all recorded. Learning from complaints was evident, and staff could describe changes made because of feedback.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service held 5 designated NHS 111 appointment slots each day for direct booking and reserved urgent appointments 1 to 3 days in advance, with unused slots reverting to routine availability. Feedback from people during our onsite visit highlighted they sometimes experienced delays waiting for routine appointments, but urgent appointments were accessible. During reserved periods, the service used eConsults to manage demand. At the time of inspection, 6 slots had been used the previous day and 1 on the day of our onsite visit, leaving 17 on-the-day slots still be used. When all slots were filled, the service directed people to NHS 111 or to contact the service directly to access care. For routine appointments, on the day of our onsite visit, the service confirmed it would be making routine appointments available to book within 2 working days. This was due to the service running a system whereby appointments were released a week at a time, and bookings could be made up to 2 weeks in advance.

Extended appointments were offered for people who needed them. People could access the service to suit their needs, for example, online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and automatic doors had been fitted to the entrance. The service had wheelchair scales and quiet waiting areas.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes, for example, by offering longer appointments, quiet spaces to wait or appointment with their chosen clinician where possible.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service had become a ‘Safe Surgery’ ensuring that lack of ID or proof of address, immigration status or language were not barriers to registration.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Positive feedback was received from community nursing teams, and they had access to timely clinical support from the service where necessary.