13 High Street

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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 service always treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were kind, professional and responsive when caring for patients. Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them in a respectful and considerate way.

We did not receive any feedback on care responses from patients. However, the provider had received feedback, which they shared with us. Comments included highly professional service, process explained clearly, warm, welcoming and friendly.

Staff followed policies to keep patient care and treatment confidential. Records identified patients’ needs and the treatment they had received.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

The service made adjustments for patients with reduced mobility to ensure they could access the service. Patients could be seen in a ground floor room, so they did not have to use the stairs.

Information could be provided in a form accessible to patients. Patients could contact the service and book appointments by phone, text or online. Written information was shared by text or email or could be printed off if requested.

The provider ensured that patients had access to interpreters when needed. The provider told us that if a patient did not speak English fluently, they usually brought someone with them to interpret. If this was not possible, they could access online translation tools.

The service promoted patients’ independence, so patients knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients chose to come to the service. The provider explained to patients the benefits and risks of microsuction and warm water irrigation ear wax removal, so that they could make an informed decision about the treatment.

The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The provider managed their own appointment system and generally could accommodate patients at short notice on the days when the clinic was open if required. The provider was aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues and planned for these accordingly. This may include continuing with the procedure, or if there were further concerns, they may stop or not carry out the procedure and refer the person to their GP. The provider gave examples of when this had happened.

The provider was able to carry out home visits if required, often for patients with a learning disability who lived in a group setting, or for patients who were bedbound. Portable equipment was available as well as appropriate personal protective equipment.

This quality statement is not relevant for this service. The provider was a sole trader, and the only person working in the service.