Archived: Solutions 4 Health- Newcastle

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

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement.This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 provided us with their most recent service user survey results; there was a low response, with only 3 service users responding. The service reviewed service user feedback in the monthly staff meeting from other sources, such as the complaint’s procedure.

Reviewing service user records, we found very little had been done to understand the holistic needs of the service users. 11 of the 23 records we reviewed had no medical or sexual health history, no lifestyle information, no sexual history and no indication of consent or offer of a chaperone.

The service had dedicated drop-in clinics for young people and people in the LGBTQIA+ community each week. The outreach team at the service attended local schools, universities and LGBTQIA+ areas to offer advice and information. The outreach team also work closely with people with a learning disability, meeting them in their homes, or community spaces in which the service users were comfortable.

The service had information leaflets available on different sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and these were available in different languages and easy read formats, if required by the service users.

The service had access to a phone-based interpretation service for service users when required.

The service clearly displayed information about how to feedback on the service in the waiting area. Feedback to the service can also be submitted via their website.

Staff we spoke with understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them.

In the 6 months prior to inspection the service had received 5 complaints. The complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Staff were informed of the complaints received by the service in the monthly staff meeting.

Learning from complaints was not evident, staff were unable to provide examples of learning from complaints.

The service had a reduced capacity due to staffing levels and the number of clinic rooms available.

Due to the high demand at the service, service users were encouraged to call prior to attending to book an appointment. These calls were triaged by administration staff, they were provided with a flow chart and a list of what actions need to be taken. Staff informed us there were not enough appointments for the demand and staff would often give callers information for other out of area sexual health services when they were unable to get an appointment.

The phone system was not able to provide information on how many calls were waiting and how many people had terminated the call before speaking to a staff member.

On average the service turned away 50 service users a week due to the level of demand. Some days this got a high as 119 service users.

Staff reported numerous occasions of abuse from service users due to a lack of appointments.

The service had a waiting list for long acting reversable contraception (LARC). The service had a consultant that visited the service to perform these procedures twice a month and 3 qualified staff members. At the time of inspection, 87 service users were awaiting an appointment for LARC.

Staff and partners informed us service users were attending other out of area sexual health service due to the waiting times and their inability to obtain an appointment.

The service had an outreach team that would attend local organisations to provide advice and education.

Staff at the service told us they did not feel listened to by senior management. The staff at the service had contacted the Local Authority directly due to their concerns about the service.

The environment and location of the service was not inclusive. The waiting room at the service was small and wheelchair users would find it difficult to navigate. The service informed us they were moving to another location due to the unsuitability of its current location. However, staff informed us that the new location was not accessible and they had raised their concerns with the senior leadership team.

Staff received mandatory training in learning disabilities and autism, 83% of staff had completed this training.

We saw limited evidence in service user records that treatment and contraceptive options were discussed in relation to future implications for service users.