Ariel Healthcare

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 that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment in December 2017, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (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 and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Staff treated people as individuals and with respect. Staff shared examples of being flexible to accommodate people’s needs when conducting annual review for people with a learning disability. For example, providing easy read documents about the reviews or carry out home visit if needed.

The service adopted a mobile app to assist in learning disability reviews. People with a learning disability and their carers could submit their health information through the mobile app to the service at their convenience prior to their appointments which formed an important part of care planning. They also provided longer appointments for people who needed them.

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.

We saw the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community.

The service had an advanced paediatric nurse practitioner who focused on seeing children and young people to promote continuity of care and helped to develop rapport with them. They also developed a work relationship with secondary care which promoted integrated care when people moved between services.

The service had a designated clinician to conduct reviews for people with a learning disability which helped to build rapport to support them along their care journey.

The service had a cancer care coordinator who contacted people with a new cancer diagnosis to provide support and signposting them to relevant services.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff highlighted any communication or accessibility needs on the electronic clinical records. Interpretation services were available for people who did not speak English as their first language.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service’s website contained a variety of information to support and educate people, includingself-help advice on healthy lifestyles and mental wellbeing.

The service provided channels for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they did not always tell them what had changed as a result.

People could raise concerns by speaking to the service, in writing or through the online form on their website. The service had a procedure to support and guide staff dealing with complaints.

During the site visit, we sampled and reviewed 4 complaints. We evidenced the service had not responded to 2 of the complaints which were received by the service over 50 days and 100 days ago respectively. This was not in line with their complaint procedure which stated the timescale for a formal reply within 30 days. In addition, responses to complaints did not always reference the option to escalate to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, if a complainant was not satisfied with the response from the service.

Delays and lack of responses to complaints was a concern identified from ongoing monitoring of the service and people’s feedback. The local integrated care board (ICB) provided support and guidance to the service on complaint resolution and the ICB commented their response rates to complaints had improved in recent months.

Following the site visit, the service developed an action plan for handling and maintaining oversight of complaints. However, this new process required time to be embedded.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access appointments online, over the telephone and in person. Reception staff could help people to fill in the medical request forms if they were unable to do so. People could use the electronic device at reception to complete the medical request form for triage if they did not have access to electronic device or internet.

The service used a ‘total triage’ model, in which people were triaged by clinicians based on clinical needs and urgency. All medical requests, regardless of how they are received, were processed through the same triage process. People were either offered a same-day or routine appointment or directed to the appropriate services.

During the site visit, we reviewed the appointment diary and saw appointments were available to book the same day for urgent appointments. The wait for a routine appointment was around 4 weeks.

People’s feedback to CQC regarding access was mixed. Some people said they got their appointments quickly but some expressed frustration in long wait for routine appointments.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 47% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting their GP practice, which was below the national average of 70%. In addition, 18% found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone, which was below the national average of 53%.

The service was aware of people’s experience regarding access and had reviewed its systems and processes. For example, the service recruited additional clinical staff to increase appointment capacity. The service also implemented measures to improve appointment availability by making it easier to cancel an appointment so that the appointment could be offered to other people. For example, they could cancel appointments through a text link in the appointment reminder or by following the automated prompt when calling the service. The service regularly reviewed the appointment data and waiting times in management meetings and adjusted the resources accordingly.

The service had recently conducted an audit on the waiting list for a routine GP appointment. The audit identified themes of reasons for a routine appointment and was exploring possible adjustments in workforce to shorten the waiting time. For example, some medical requests could be managed by clinicians other than a GP and were redirected. The service also identified some were duplicated requests and were looking for improvement in the triage system to tackle this.

People’s feedback and comments from the patient participation group (PPG) members indicated that access to the service had improved in recent months.

There was level access to the premises and all the clinical rooms were on the ground floor at both sites. The service was equipped with hearing loop system for people with hearing impairment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service was flexible in its approach to supporting people. For example, home visits could be arranged if required. The service had a designated nurse to visit people with diabetes who were homebound for an annual review. The visit covered necessary checking, monitoring, ensure they were taking medicines as prescribed and provide appropriate health advice.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff told us they understood the local population and the difficulties they may encounter. For example, the service could arrange a quieter waiting area for appointments and flagged the needs on the clinical system. Staff gave another example of how they help people with a learning disability to overcome the fear of needles during blood taking by seeking support from specialty nurses in secondary care.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

The service was an accredited veteran friendly practice. The service supported veteran’s physical and mental health, and they could be referred to dedicated specialist healthcare services when required.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. The service established a palliative care team lead by a GP supported by clinicians and administrative staff. They discussed people on palliative care in regular meetings to optimise their care with focus on their quality of life.