• Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

Walk in Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Accident and Emergency Department, Dewsbury And District Hospital, Halifax Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, WF13 4HS (01924) 816200

Provided and run by:
Locala Community Partnerships C.I.C.

Important: This service was previously managed by a different provider - see old profile

All Inspections

12 April 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at the Walk in Centre, which is situated in the emergency department (ED) at Dewsbury and District Hospital, on 12 April 2022. This inspection was carried out as part of our national programme of urgent and emergency care inspections.

At this inspection, only those key lines of enquiry designed to support the focused inspection of the walk in centre within the key questions of safe, effective, caring and well-led were examined. Therefore, there are no ratings associated with this inspection.

A summary of CQC findings on urgent and emergency care services in West Yorkshire

Urgent and emergency care services across England have been and continue to be under sustained pressure. In response, CQC is undertaking a series of coordinated inspections, monitoring calls and analysis of data to identify how services in a local area work together to ensure patients receive safe, effective and timely care. We have summarised our findings for West Yorkshire below:

West Yorkshire

Provision of urgent and emergency care in West Yorkshire was supported by multiple provider services, stakeholders, commissioners and local authorities.

We spoke with staff in services across primary care, integrated urgent care, community, acute, mental health, ambulance services and adult social care. Staff continued to work under sustained pressure across health and social care and system leaders were working together to support their workforce and to identify opportunities to improve. System partners worked together to find new ways of working, linking with community services to meet the needs of their communities; however, people continued to experience delays in accessing care and treatment.

During our inspections, some staff and patients reported difficulties with providing and accessing telephone appointments in GP practices. Some of these issues were caused by telephony systems which were being resolved locally. We found inconsistencies with triage processes in primary care which could result in people being inappropriately signposted to urgent and emergency care services. However, a number of staff working in social care services reported good engagement with local GPs.

We visited some community services in West Yorkshire and found these were generally well run. Service leaders were working collaboratively to identify opportunities to improve patient pathways across urgent and emergency care. These improvements focused on meeting the needs of local communities and alleviating pressure on other services. There were strong partnerships with social care and community teams, so patients had the right support in place on discharge.

However, we inspected one intermediate care service and found it could only take referrals from an acute trust, which meant there were no step-up facilities for patients in the community. The service struggled for ward space to deliver therapeutic activities and there were no communal spaces for patients to meet together or engage in group therapy. Plans were in place to provide additional facilities and to reconfigure the existing layout to provide communal spaces.

The NHS111 service was experiencing significant staffing challenges and were in the process of recruiting a high number of new staff. Staff working in this service had experienced an increase in demand, particularly from people trying to access dental treatment although a system was in place to manage the need for dental advice and assessment. Due to demand and capacity issues, performance was poor in some key areas, such as providing a call back to patients from a clinician.

The ambulance service had an improvement programme in place focused on performance and staffing. Whilst we saw improvement in the ambulance response times and handover delays, performance remained below target. We identified impact on other services due to the availability of 999 responses; for example, a maternity service had to close temporarily to keep women safe, due to system escalation and because ambulance responses could not be guaranteed in an emergency. Staff working in social care services also experienced lengthy delays in ambulance response times which further impacted on their ability to provide care to their residents.

We inspected some mental health services in Wakefield which were delivering person-centred care and responded to urgent needs in a timely way. Staff worked in multi-disciplinary teams and collaborated with system partners.

People’s experiences of emergency departments were varied depending on which service they accessed. Some emergency departments had long delays whilst others performed relatively well. In services struggling to meet demand, patient flow was a key factor. Poor patient flow was primarily caused by delays in discharge with a high number of people fit for discharge unable to access community or social care services.

Staff working in some social care services reported significant challenges in relation to unsafe discharge processes, this included a lack of information to support their transfer of care and we were told of examples when this resulted in people having to return to hospital. Local stakeholders had a good understanding of this problem and were looking to improve pathways and discharge planning.

Staffing and capacity issues in both care homes and domiciliary social care services have at times impacted on timely and safe discharge from hospital.

We found services were under continued pressure and people experienced difficulties accessing urgent and emergency care services in West Yorkshire. System and service leaders across West Yorkshire were working together to seek opportunities for improvement by providing services and pathways to meet people’s needs in the community; however, progress was needed to demonstrate significant improvement in people’s experience of accessing urgent and emergency care.

At the inspection of the Walk in Centre we found:

  • Safeguarding and safety systems, processes and practices had been developed, implemented and communicated to staff to manage risk and ensure patient safety.
  • Recruitment records were maintained in line with guidance and staff had access to induction, training and development.
  • Infection prevention and control was appropriately managed to help safeguard people from a healthcare associated infection.
  • The provider had access to appropriate clinical equipment in place to enable assessment of patients including emergency resuscitation equipment and medicines.
  • Despite facing challenges with staffing the service had continued to maintain safe staffing levels with an appropriate skill mix of staff. The service had maintained face-to-face appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Systems were in place to respond to incidents and to ensure learning was identified and cascaded so improvements could be made when necessary.
  • Clinical records viewed provided evidence that care and treatment was provided safely and effectively and in accordance with evidence-based guidelines.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care.
  • Performance was routinely monitored, and data indicated that the service was performing well against key performance indicators. The service had paused some of their quality improvement activity, including clinical audit, during the COVID-19 pandemic but told us these were about to re-commence and demonstrated their 2022/23 schedule.
  • We observed staff to treat patients in a respectful and considerate way and patient feedback reviewed was very positive.
  • The provider had an effective governance system in place that enabled ongoing monitoring and scrutiny of the operation and performance of the services provided.
  • Leaders demonstrated they had the capacity and skills to deliver high-quality, sustainable care.
  • The provider engaged with patients and staff to improve the service.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Deliver the planned audit schedule for 2022/23.
  • Improve and develop staff awareness of the nominated Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and the duty of candour to ensure all staff are aware of these.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

17 October 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Walk in Centre, Dewsbury and District Hospital on 23 February 2017. The overall rating for the service was requires improvement and a breach of the legal requirements was found. The full comprehensive report for the February 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Walk in Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 17 October 2017 to confirm that the service had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 23 February 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the service is now rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The provider had implemented a system to assure themselves that all the appropriate checks were carried out by the employing agency on locum staff.
  • The provider demonstrated quality improvement activity.
  • The provider had taken steps to reduce risks to patients within the Walk in Centre by working to clarify arrangements and responsibilities for the monitoring and management of equipment and the environment.
  • The service had decided not to see or treat children under two years of age until a protocol for the management of this age group was agreed with Mid Yorks Hospitals Trust (MYHT). We were shown evidence that work to achieve this protocol was underway. All staff we spoke with were aware of this and children were directed to the emergency department.

In addition the provider should:

  • Continue to work with Mid Yorks Hospitals Trust to ensure the reduction of risks to patients through the continued review and formulation of written protocols and agreements for the area.
  • Review their arrangements for carrying out fire drills in conjunction with Mid Yorkshire Hospital Trust in line with Government guidelines.
  • Deliver on their plan to carry out a patient satisfaction survey in November 2017.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

23 February 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Walk in Centre, Dewsbury and District Hospital on 23 February 2017. Overall the centre is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Although some risks to patients were assessed, we found a lack of written protocols to support verbal agreements between the Walk in Centre and Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust (MYHT) which would clarify the arrangements and responsibility for the assessment, monitoring and management of the area and the reduction of risks to patients’ safety.
  • The provider could not assure themselves that locum staff from the agency were Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checked or had suitable indemnity arrangements in place. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results showed that between February 2016 and February 2017 of 854 responses, 92% of patients would be likely or extremely likely to recommend the service to their friends and family. The service had not undertaken a patient survey.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The service could not evidence ongoing clinical audits or demonstrate quality improvement.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour and there was a staff information booklet to support this. Staff were knowledgeable about this issue.
  • Children under 12 months were directed to the emergency department and not seen in the walk in centre. However, a flow chart developed by the service and MYHT stated that children aged two or more could be directed to the walk in centre and it did not detail the pathway for children between 12 months and two years old. We were told there was another protocol for this age group but we did not see this on the day of inspection.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Introduce a system to assure themselves that all appropriate checks have been carried out by the employing agency on any locum staff used.
  • The provider must be able to demonstrate clinical audits and assure themselves that they have considered the quality of care provided, reviewed the care provided in relation to current best practice guidance and made changes where necessary in order to improve.
  • The service must be able to assure themselves of the arrangements and responsibility for the assessment, monitoring and management of the area and the reduction of risks to patients’ safety within the walk in centre.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The service should clarify the arrangements for the initial review of children aged between 12 months and two years of age and ensure that the joint protocol for assessment between MYHT and the Walk in Centre reflects this.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

3 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who told us they had never used the service before but were very happy with the care they had received. One patient told us "Every town should have a service like this, I have travelled twenty miles because my general practitioner (GP) could not give me an appointment." Another said "I am really impressed by the service."

People's health, safety and wellbeing was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider had developed robust written and agreed procedures with other providers. They had in place measures to regularly review those procedures in light of service changes.

People we spoke with told us the healthcare professionals they saw at the centre took time to explain things to them and they were able to ask questions. They told us they felt involved in decisions about their treatment.

Appropriate recruitment checks were in place prior to the employment of staff. This meant the provider had taken steps to ensure the staff they employed were of good character and suitable people to work with vulnerable groups.

The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

22 January 2013

During a routine inspection

The Locala Walk-in centre gives access to local NHS services and can offer assessment, advice and treatment on a range of minor illnesses, ailments and primary care conditions.

On the day of our inspection we were unable to speak with people as there was no one using the service.

The procedures for care and treatment were carried out in line with up to date published research and good practice guidelines such as those from 'The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).'

The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable and showed a good awareness of the needs of the people who used the service.