Parkway

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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.

Staff in an audiology clinic we inspected demonstrated a good awareness of the diverse health and care needs present in the locality they served.

We saw a recent experience report that demonstrated that 94% of service users in ENT and 97% of service users in audiology waited less than 6 weeks from referral to be given an appointment, except in cases where they had cancelled and rebooked. This was monitored quarterly.

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.

We noted that staff in the service ensured they provided feedback forms to all service users at the conclusion of their appointment, and the service has been working to improve the quantity and quality of feedback they receive.

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.

We were informed that a telephone interpretation service was available for staff at satellite clinics. We also noted that several staff in the service could speak and understand languages commonly used by the local community.

We noted that the Parkway site including outpatient facilities was only accessible through the use of an intercom system at the main door, which service users who had a hearing loss or spoke a different language may have found challenging to operate.

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.

We noted that strong pathways existed between the audiology and ENT services so that hearing aid provision could be discussed and advised upon for service users attending ENT appointments. Audiology clinics routinely used questionnaires in their practice to help determine what goals were most important to each individual and then work towards achieving these.