Nuyu Clinic

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 registered provider met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this registered provider 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 care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to their needs.

They did this by having discussions and by providing people with the support they needed to understand, for example by offering support with any communication needs.

Feedback we received showed that people felt they had the time to fully discuss their individual concerns and symptoms prior to receiving care and treatment. Feedback also indicated that the provider took a holistic approach to care and that treatments were personalised.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider ensured people received appropriate support and follow-up reviews after initial treatment.

A letter was sent to the person’s GP following an appointment, and this included information on the consultation and any treatment provided. Where required, the provider also liaised with other external healthcare professionals regarding the person's care.

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

The provider told us that people were advised of the full cost of consultations and proposed treatments, prior to an appointment. Information on costs was available on the service’s website.

The provider 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 provider routinely requested feedback from people, following a consultation.

There was a complaints policy and process in place. This included provision for assistance with the resolution of complaints, where required, by an appropriate independent healthcare professional or healthcare mediator, at no cost to the person. The provider told us that they had never received a formal complaint.

Feedback demonstrated that the provider listened attentively, provided sufficient time to fully discuss concerns, and that people felt well informed to make decisions about their care and treatment.

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

The service routinely operated on Tuesdays, with flexibility to offer evening and weekend appointments according to need. Appointments could be booked online up to 4 weeks in advance. Initial consultations were usually conducted face to face, with follow-up consultations carried out by telephone where appropriate. The service was located at ground-floor level and limited parking was available. Feedback indicated that appointments were readily accessible.

The provider regularly delivered free menopause workshops in the local community. They told us this approach helped to reduce inequalities in access to menopause information and support, particularly for those who may have faced barriers to accessing traditional healthcare services. We saw that feedback from these workshops was positive, with attendees reporting they felt more informed about menopause.

The provider treated people without discrimination. They understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. For example, an interpretation service was available to support effective communication.

The provider told us that if they could not meet the needs of the person they would discuss alternate care and treatment options and refer or signpost people accordingly. Training was carried out in equality and diversity, and in learning disability and autism.

This quality statement is not relevant for this service and has not been assessed.