Acer House SARC

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 assessed 1 quality statement under the caring key question. Patient feedback was overwhelmingly positive. The setting and staff interactions promoted privacy, dignity, and reassurance, supported by flexible examination choices, discreet access arrangements, clear explanations, and the safe management of intimate images. Patients were also provided with information about available support services and arrangements for follow‑up care.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

Although we could not speak with patients directly, we reviewed feedback that had been gathered by the service in the 6 months before this inspection. The service received 45 feedback forms from children, young people, adults and professionals that had attended the service. Feedback was extremely positive, with descriptions such as ‘staff were amazing,’ ‘I felt safe and listened to’ and professionals described how quickly staff formed positive relationships with patients. Staff were described as kind, caring and supportive.

On arrival at the SARC patients were greeted by a crisis worker, who took time to explain their role, the processes, options and procedures to be completed and collected general information from the patient.

Staff had access to a baby bath and a changing mat. However, these had been deliberately removed from immediate use to minimise the risk of further distress to adult victims of abuse while the adult SARC was not operational.

Staff provided a practical example of how they delivered compassionate, person‑centred support. For example, one staff member described supporting an autistic person who attended the SARC carrying a personal comfort item. Staff reassured the patient that they could keep the item with them throughout their visit, which helped them feel more at ease. As the examination progressed, the patient became visibly more relaxed and relied less on the item.

Staff demonstrated their awareness of the importance of communication, language and non-verbal communication, to help them engage with patients in a supportive and meaningful way.

The CSAAS lead told us that staff had access to communication aids to support interactions with patients, including a whiteboard for writing or drawing on. Staff also used a ‘traffic‑light’ tool to encourage patients to check in with staff and indicate whether they were comfortable with how the examination was progressing.

Staff shared a recent experience where a male interpreter attended the SARC with a female patient. Staff recognised that the patient appeared uncomfortable with his presence and arranged to use an online interpretation service instead. The patient was satisfied with this alternative arrangement. Staff stressed the importance of taking time with patients to build a rapport and explain step by step what was happening. Staff used toys and books to distract children and young people during the examination.

Patients’ privacy and confidentiality were maintained by staff throughout their visit. The SARC building was not open to the public and staff had controlled individual access. Patients’ dignity was maintained during examinations by using a portable privacy screen and modesty sheets. A clear process was in place to ensure intimate images taken during the examination process were managed securely and confidentially.

The post-examination room was bright and colourful, with a TV, toys and books. There were ample resources to keep young children occupied whilst they waited. Soft furnishings made the room feel homely. Hot and cold drinks and snacks were available. Children were always supervised by their responsible adult. A bathroom was available allowing patients to shower and change after their examination.

Each patient received a wellbeing pack prior to leaving the SARC; these included a summary of the patient's care and information detailing a range of counselling and support services that could be contacted following attendance at the SARC. One staff member shared an example of working with a SARC outside the North Yorkshire area. A patient attended Acer House but lived in the south of England and was returning home following their examination. The staff member contacted the patient’s local SARC and arranged for information about local support services to be emailed to the patient.

Specific information was available for men; those aged over 16 and women and girls.

Patients received a follow up call, those aged under 18 received this at 3 weeks, over 18 at 6 weeks and those assessed as high risk in relation to mental health, received a call after 48 hours; this enabled staff to check in regarding the welfare of patients and ensure follow up care was in place where needed.

Forensic samples could be kept for up to 2 years for those patients that self-referred to the service, allowing them time to consider if they wanted to act against a suspect at a future date.

The judgement for Treating people as individuals is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Caring key question.

The judgement for Independence, choice and control is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Caring key question.

The judgement for Responding to people’s immediate needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Caring key question.

The judgement for Workforce wellbeing and enablement is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Caring key question.