Waterloo Court

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This was the first assessment of this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they responded to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

All areas of the service were accessible to people using wheelchairs. The room utilised for this service was located on the ground floor, ensuring ease of access.

Relevant information was shared by the referring provider and were reviewed alongside any records held within the service. This information was assessed by the registered person to determine the person’s suitability for blood collection.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support people’s needs and preferences. For example, 1 person requested to watch content on their mobile phone during the procedure, which was accommodated to help reduce anxiety and provide distraction during blood collection.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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.

Information about the service was clearly available to support equitable access for all people, regardless of gender, race, religion, belief, or sexual orientation.

People attending the service were informed the results from blood collection would be provided by the referring provider. Alternatively, people had the option to access results through the private GP practice located at the same premises.

With consent, results could be shared with the individual’s registered GP. This was facilitated through documentation completed at the time of the blood collection, ensuring information sharing was in line with person’s preferences.

Appointment scheduling processes were responsive to people’s needs. For example, adjustments could be made to appointment times where people were anxious or had previously experienced difficulties with blood collection.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied accurate and up-to-date information in formats that could be tailored to individual needs.

The registered person demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to statutory notifications and was aware of the requirements to notify relevant external bodies where needed.

Effective information governance systems were in place to ensure the confidentiality and security of people’s records, in line with data protection requirements.

Information about the services provided was accessible through a range of online platforms, including the service’s website, enabling people to obtain relevant details prior to attending.

The registered person advised us information could be made available in alternative formats upon request to meet peoples’ needs. Website accessibility features included options to enlarge text and the availability of screen reader functionality, allowing people to listen to information where required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They told people what had changed because of feedback.

Since registration, the service had received 1 complaint, which formed part of a wider complaint involving the referring provider. The complaint for this service was upheld, and we saw evidence that the registered person had acted in response. This included implementing changes to service provision and practice to support improvement and reduce the risk of recurrence.

Information on how to make a complaint or raise concerns was clearly available on the provider’s website, supporting transparency and enabling people to easily access the complaints process.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The registered person demonstrated a proactive approach to making reasonable adjustments to ensure people were able to access the service. The premises were located on the ground floor, supporting accessibility for people with mobility needs.

The location was easy to find, and free on-site parking was available, which supported convenient access for people attending the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The registered person 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 registered person demonstrated a commitment to fostering an inclusive and open culture, where people using the service were encouraged and supported to share their views and experiences. Systems were in place to enable feedback, including access to the service’s complaints and concerns policy via the provider’s website. This ensured people had clear information on how to raise issues and felt confident that their voices would be heard.

Feedback from people using the service was also reviewed on external platforms, including social media, where comments were consistently positive. This indicated a high level of satisfaction with the care and support provided and reflected the service’s willingness to engage with feedback transparently.

Planning for the future is not applicable to this service.