Parkway

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes, based on best available evidence.

We did not rate the effective key question under our old methodology. At this inspection we rated it as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

Service users were provided with a contact number if they had queries regarding their appointment, and the service audited their responsiveness to these calls to ensure they met expectations. The people we spoke to said they felt able to ask questions or raise concerns to staff, if they had any.

The care records we observed contained a holistic summary of the service user which was updated appropriately at each clinical episode, and their care was informed by this review. A sample of clinical records had been audited by the service last year, which confirmed a good standard and appropriate action points.

Staff were experienced and qualified and had the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people using the service. Staff we spoke to were aware of current guidelines.

Managers provided staff with meetings to discuss care management, to reflect on and learn from practice, and for personal support and professional development. We noted that poor staff performance was managed promptly and effectively, and any concerns were subsequently audited to ensure ongoing quality.

While user group meetings had been organised previously, these had not been arranged since October 2024, and no clinical audiology staff had been present at the last meeting. However, an audiologist did demonstrate that concerns and discussions happen continuously on a live chat system, and they felt that managers and colleagues were all very responsive.

There were no concerns raised between how ENT and audiology staff groups work together, and we were told that both disciplines understood their working relationships and communicated well.

This section was assessed using findings that are applicable to the whole Parkway site, which are included in the appropriate section of the surgery report.

This section was partly assessed using findings that apply to the whole Parkway site, which are included in the appropriate section of the surgery report.

Both ENT and audiology services took part in various audits to monitor outcomes, which included turnaround times and quality of clinic letters, repeat microsuction rates, and rates of onward referral. The results of these audits were communicated and discussed at

This section was partly assessed using findings that apply to the whole Parkway site, which are included in the appropriate section of the surgery report.

Staff took all practical steps to enable service users to make their own decisions. We observed 2 clinical episodes in which a procedure was fully explained and the consent of service users was sought at each step appropriately.

We were advised that decisions regarding mental capacity and consent are rare occurrences in the service, but staff had access to the service policy and were able to demonstrate appropriate understanding of consent procedures.