Barking Urgent Treatment Centre

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, and patients were able to easily access the service. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good, this was because at the previous assessment the service was not meeting its 4-hour target as agreed with the commissioners to treat and discharge patients. At this assessment over 98% of patients were treated and discharged from the service in 4 hours for the past four months.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Barking Urgent Treatment Centre was not co-located by an accident and emergency department, this meant that the patients who attended generally had a lower level of acuity and risk.

The organisation reviewed patient feedback as part of their quality and safety meetings and took action in response to the findings. The organisation was actively involved with the local integrated care board, where they worked with other services to recognise and improve the appropriate local health inequalities.

All patients could walk into the service every day from 8am to 10pm and did not need to book an appointment. Patients were seen on a first come first served basis unless prioritised as having more urgent needs. The service had a system in place to facilitate prioritisation, according to clinical need, where more serious cases or young children could be prioritised as they arrived.

At the initial assessment, clinical staff would direct patients to the appropriate service, with the aid of clinical guidelines. The patient record system also contained prompts to ensure patients’ needs were quickly met. For example, for patients with sickle cell disease, a prompt could be displayed to advise they needed to go straight to an accident and emergency service.

The service had a system in place for when patients did not wait to be seen following their initial assessment. The clinician would call them three times at 10-minute intervals. If they still had not arrived, they called the patient on their phone. If they still could not find them or make contact, a doctor reviewed their notes and if no concerns, the doctor would leave a message with advice and instructions for when to seek further help. If they had concerns, they would arrange for a patient welfare check by the emergency services.

An operational team had been established following a restructuring initiative, enabling immediate resolution of rota-related issues and ensuring consistent staffing coverage to ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider submitted the most recent patient feedback for Barking Urgent Treatment Centre for August 2025, where they received 83 patient responses, where 63 (76%) of patients were likely or very likely to recommend the department, while 23 (28%) were unlikely or very unlikely.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Patients were referred to secondary care services and to the accident and emergency department when required. The patient’s GP was informed of any patient consultations carried out by the service.

Staff described having a good working relationship with the hospital trust.

The service supplied appropriate information, in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Interpreters and support for patients with language barriers were available. Hearing loops were available for patients whose hearing was impaired.

The service had systems and policies in place to protect and share patients’ data. Role based access controls restricted patient information to staff dependent upon their responsibilities. Audit logs were reviewed to monitor access and detect inappropriate usage. Most staff had completed mandatory training on information governance and confidentiality.

The organisation took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.

The service had an effective system in place to monitor, investigate, respond and learn from complaints. Complaints were monitored by the governance committee. The patients’ complaints and compliments were shared with staff to enable learning. The organisation shared with staff the top complaints and feedback and what action they were taking. Reminders were continuously being sent to the whole organisation with regards to the top complaints through Safety Matters Newsletter, CEO weekly update and individual staff management process. In alignment with the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), all complaints were reviewed at a weekly learning panel to identify any potential safety events early in the process.

The organisation had carried out an annual review of complaints in May 2025, this found 12.6% (12) of the organisation’s complaints related to Barking UTC. The organisation found most concerns about clinical treatments were not upheld. The review also found the number of complaints to the organisation had significantly reduced, for example in 2022/2023, 593 complaints were made and in 2024/2025, 95 complaints were made, Which the leaders stated were due to the improvements in patient waiting times.

All complaints were acknowledged within target timescales. Any overdue complaints were risk stratified by the governance team

The service aimed to make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed promptly, whilst supporting patients.

At the previous assessment, the organisation was not meeting its four-hour target as agreed with the commissioners, which had been consistently under 95% for the past six months. At this assessment we found the organisation was meeting and exceeding both its initial patient assessment within 15 minutes of arrival and 4-hour treatment. Over 99% of patients were seen for their initial assessment within 15 minutes and over 98% treated and discharged from the service in 4 hours for the past three months.

The leaders and staff raised their concern that the number of patients who attended appointments for wound care had increased due to the lack of local community services. For the three months from April to June, approximately 40% of minor injury patients had attended the service for wound care. They explained this impacted on their 4-hour target and caused possible delays for other patients who attended with minor injuries. The leaders had raised this with the local commissioners of the service

The service operated every day from 8am to 10pm seven days a week. Patients could access the service either as a walk in-patient, via the NHS 111 service or by referral from a healthcare professional. Patients did not need to book an appointment.

Patients were generally seen on a first come first served basis, although the service had a system in place to facilitate prioritisation according to clinical need where more serious cases or young children could be prioritised as they arrived. The reception staff had a list of emergency criteria they used to alert the clinical staff if a patient had an urgent need. The criteria included guidance on sepsis and the symptoms that would prompt an urgent response.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information and monitored peoples experience and outcomes to ensure people who were most likely to experience inequality needs were recognised and met.

The organisation listened to patient feedback and responded to their needs removing the main barrier of excessive waiting times for all patients. Patients who had specific disability needs were supported throughout their journey at the service.

The leaders monitored patient flow in the service, to help ensure patients were seen promptly. Over 99% of patients were seen for their initial assessment within 15 minutes and over 98% treated and discharged from the service in 4 hours for the past three months.

The provider submitted the most recent patient feedback for Barking Urgent Treatment centre for August 2025, out of 99 responses, 47 patients (47%) were likely or very likely to recommend the department, while 45 (45%) were unlikely or very unlikely.

Patients were supported to make informed decisions about their future care and treatment.

There were arrangements and systems in place to support staff to respond to patients with specific health care needs, such as end-of-life care.

The provider submitted the most recent patient feedback for Barking Urgent Treatment Centre for August 2025, where patients were asked if they felt involved in decisions about their care out of 83 responses, 58 (70%) stated they were involved.