The Bridgeway SARC

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 assessed 1 quality statement under the responsive key question. The service operated using preplanned appointments, enabling staff to prepare patients in advance and offer accessible information, including child friendly leaflets and translation or communication support. Staff worked closely with partners and were seeking to improve engagement and outreach with the local community. The SARC environment was accessible, and no complaints had been received in the previous year.

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

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

There was a helpful website giving patients information about the service and how to make an appointment. Patients could access the service 7 days a week, from 09.00 to 21.00 via a referral from the police or social services and by self-referral. Pathways were in place for patients to access a SARC service outside of these times. All appointments were pre-planned, this enabled staff to work flexibly with patients before they attended, this included answering any questions by phone or by the patient’s preferred method of communication, such as email.

Several information leaflets about the SARC service were available on the provider’s website, these were specific to children and adults and included easy read versions. Links to support services for patients were also available. The content of the provider’s website could be adjusted to be read in multiple different languages; however, information was not available at The Bridgeway in different languages.

The service mostly had established relationships with the police and local authorities; however, staff were sighted on the need to promote it more widely. Staff were keen to proactively engage with local communities. Staff attended a theatre production that referenced sexual assault, staff provided information and engaged with those in attendance to raise the profile of the service. Police received practical training regarding forensic examinations from the SARC doctor, this enabled officers to gain a clearer understanding of clinical decision-making, evidence collection, and forensic limitations.

The premises were fully accessible to wheelchair users, there was dedicated parking outside the building for patients or police to use, including a dedicated disabled parking space. The SARC building was accessible via a ramp. Toilet and shower facilities were accessible, and a push button alarm was installed for use in the event of an emergency. The police were responsible for providing in-person interpreters; however; staff also had access to translation services for patients who did not speak or understand English. Staff could arrange British sign language interpretation, and this was delivered online.

Staff completed regular training on equality and diversity and records we viewed showed that patients were asked about their sexuality, disability, and religious needs so that staff could take these into account in the delivery of care.

There was a small supply of children’s toys to try and make the experience as child friendly as possible. The lighting was adjustable in the clinical examination room; lights could be dimmed to meet the needs of those patients with sensory needs. Patients could request their gender preference of the doctor undertaking their examination.

The service had not received any complaints within the 12 months prior to this inspection.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.