Shakespeare Walk in 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 that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. We saw that patients had good access to the service, and that they received care and treatment that was responsive to their needs. At the last assessment the service was found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance, and in relation to the handling of complaints. At this assessment we saw that complaints processes were in place, and that complaints had been investigated and actions taken to prevent recurrence. However, we found that some complaints had taken a long time to resolve, and exceeded the provider’s target of being dealt with within 40 days.

At our last assessment in 2023, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained the same.

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 practice put patients and their immediate needs at the centre of their care and treatment. All patients were triaged to assess their specific needs, and were prioritised for treatment based on risk. The provider offered reasonable adjustments, for example the use of interpreters, so that patients’ needs were met, and which ensured that they received the most appropriate care and treatment. The service told us that they involved patients in planning, and making shared decisions about the care and treatment delivered to them. When it was identified that the service was unable to meet the needs of the patient, they were signposted or referred to the service most appropriate to their needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice. We saw that the service took into account the needs and wishes of members of the local community. For example, facilities were in place to preserve the dignity of patients, such as curtains in treatment rooms. Trained chaperones were also available if requested. The provider told us that within the next 6 months it was their intention to increase local engagement activities with schools and community groups. This would help to increase local knowledge of the service, especially as it moved towards urgent treatment centre status in the near future. The provider engaged widely with other local health and care services such as local hospitals, which the service frequently needed to refer patients to for care such as radiology, or more complex treatments.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw that the provider had taken steps to engage with patients to ensure that they understood their treatment and care, and had a better understanding of how the service operated. As examples, the service reception had a hearing loop installed, advice and information could be sent to patients via a software platform, translation and interpretation services were available, and information leaflets and posters had been devised in different languages and were used to illustrate how a patient moved through the service. This latter point helped to give patients an improved understanding of the service, and sought to manage their expectations. The practice website contained key information for those seeking care such as opening hours, and the availability of translation services and chaperones.

The service had processes in place for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff explained care and treatment options with patients, and involved them in decisions about their care. Staff discussed alternative care options with walk in patients if they felt other services were more appropriate, such as directing them to a pharmacy. We saw that the provider had in place processes for handling patient complaints. Between April 2024 and the end of March 2025 they had received 19 complaints. These had generally been managed in line with the practice’s policy; however, the provider had identified that a number of complaints had not been dealt with in a timely manner, and had exceeded their target of dealing with these within 40 days. We discussed this with the provider who told us that a new process had been put in place to improve the recording and tracking of complaints, and relevant staff informed when target deadlines were close to being exceeded. We saw that the provider examined complaint trends, and had put in place actions to improve the service following complaints. For example, a patient information leaflet had been developed to advise patients about what they can expect to happen to them after they had booked in. Staff we spoke with told us that learning from complaints had been shared with them.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients were able to access the service at a time to suit them and their needs. The service operated every day including bank holidays, and was available from 8am to 8pm. If patients were still awaiting treatment at 8pm, the service was staffed until 9pm which allowed them to be seen. Patients were able to access the service as either walk in patients without pre-booking, or via a direct appointment booking made by NHS 111 (of which 10 NHS 111 appointments were available per day, with the last booking able to be made up to 7pm). Patients were triaged and prioritised according to risk and need. Triage and treatment rooms were located on the ground floor and were accessible to those with a physical disability. Car parking at the premises was limited, and parking restrictions applied on nearby roads. We saw that performance in relation to patient access was generally good, and was predominantly in line with targets. For example, from January to the end of March 2025 the service met it’s 4-hour target for patients to be seen, referred or discharged following presentation. The target for this was 95% and the service had achieved averages of between 95.6% and 99.3%. However, targets for triage were on occasion challenging at peak periods of attendance and due to capacity issues when staff took necessary breaks, and there were unexpected surges in demand. Median times to treatment from January to the end of March 2025 ranged from 13 to 18 minutes, and were within the 20-minute target set for the service. The provider reported very low levels of patients who had not attended for booked appointments.

Due to the nature of the service, it was open and accessible to the whole locality population, this included people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes such as those who were not registered with a GP, asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants, or those who were otherwise vulnerable such as the homeless. The provider tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, we saw that materials had been translated into other languages to help patients understand their care and treatment. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination, and understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. We saw that staff had received equalities training. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. We saw that feedback received regarding the service was positive. For example, 87% of the 37 respondents to the NHS Friends and Family Test who attended the service between November 2024 and February 2025 would recommend the service to others, and were positive about their experience of the service.

Due to the nature of the service the provider was not usually involved in advanced care planning for patients, such as those under palliative care. Though these patients were able to attend the service for any acute needs that they had. If required the service had access to patient information regarding end-of-life care, which included cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions.