You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 April 2012
Date of Publication: 14 May 2012
Inspection Report published 14 May 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. The provider was meeting this standard.

User experience

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care they received at this location. They said they had had as much information as they needed about the clinical trial they were going to be participating in before the trial started and then as the trial progressed could always seek more information. They felt that information was provided in terms that they could understand and in detail when they required it.

One person said that staff “cared about me as an individual” and “nothing worries me coming here”. Another described “a very positive experience, with no negatives to report” and an overall “excellent experience”.

We saw the most recent patient survey report from February 2012 and this showed that 100% of people who replied reported receiving all the information they needed. 100% of people said that they had been treated with dignity and respect. All the people who had been treated at this service in 2011 were invited to respond to the survey.

Other evidence

People using this service have been referred by their specialist oncologist or doctor and will return to the referrer for treatment when the trial is completed and when appropriate.

Staff described the process for people commencing as a participant in a clinical trial. This involved discussions and an informed consent process. There is a patient information sheet for each trial. This includes consent, side effects and outcomes from the specific trial. Patients may ask as many questions as they wish and may withdraw from a trial at any time.

We saw the systems for seeking feedback from people. This included daily comments cards which are monitored and reviewed by the Integrated Governance Committee. A patients' annual survey is also undertaken which is monitored and reviewed. We heard of examples of changes made in response to feedback, such as the review of catering services to provide hot meals for people.

All clinical trials must be approved by a formal ethics committee process. There is patient representation on such committees.

All patients were treated in a private pod area which we saw. There were also two private bed spaces available for patients if they choose. No people stay overnight at this location.