Expert Health Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of the patients personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. At our last assessment, 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care and wellbeing needs with them.

Data from the provider showed that 84% of feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs. Staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs. Staff had information relating to people’s health and care, when making prescribing decisions as patients are required to provide their medical history information. Leaders informed us that once patients create an account this information is stored on their online profile and clinicians have access to this before authorising treatment. Clinical staff used consultation templates to ensure consistency and support the holistic care needs of individuals' health and wellbeing.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Leaders told us they attend digital clinical excellence (DiCE) network meetings which aim to drive excellence and improve quality and safety in digital healthcare.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation, for example the system algorithm identified clinical risks to clinicians to supports safe prescribing, this included alerts if a patient was on medication that could interact with treatment they requested. We also saw clinical risk alerts if a patient made additional treatment requests before the due time frame of the original prescription request. Clinical records we reviewed demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Leaders told us multidisciplinary working was embedded and led to practical service improvements, stronger clinical oversight and more consistent patient advice. For example, in clinical meetings we saw evidence the discussions at these meetings were documented and shared with relevant members of staff.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health. Where appropriate, staff gave patients advice so they could self-care. Risk factors were identified, highlighted to patients and where appropriate highlighted to their normal care provider for additional support.For example, regular informative emails were sent out to patients at different intervals that were being prescribed medicines relating to weight loss to make patients aware of dietary habits they can benefit from.Where patients’ needs could not be met by the service, staff redirected them to the appropriate service for their needs.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Results from the most recent annual patient survey based on 3,700 responses found 87% of patients were very satisfied, 97% found clinicians information clear and 95% found the consultation very easy or easy. Staff and leaders worked together to routinely review care and treatment and share learning. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. The service carried out regular quality monitoring activities, including audits. For example, the service carries out regular prescribing audits to ensure consistency and clinical effectiveness.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded and there were policies in place to support this process, which staff could adequately describe. Consent was an ongoing process via the secure two-way messaging with patients and clinicians. This demonstrated ongoing patient engagement. Some of the treatment options required patients to submit a photo alongside ID for verification and this was with a third-party company. The weight loss treatments required additional body mass index (BMI) verification of video submission.