InHealth Jarvis Breast Screening 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 people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People we spoke with told us they felt involved in their care and were treated as individuals. A person informed us that they were able to change their appointment time to better suit them. All people we spoke with told us they felt cared for by the service.

A member of staff told us the role was very rewarding as they were able to make a difference to individual people’s care.

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.

The administrative team communicated with external teams such as GP services to request if people had any specific needs that the service should be aware of, if requirements were identified then it would be logged on their system and a flag created which would alert the team additional action was required.

The service had a cancellation procedure in place, this enabled the service to suitably rebook appointments and offer the free space to another person, this ensured a smooth and effective appointment process. After the second cancellation, the service would notify the person’s GP, so other healthcare professionals were aware of the action.

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

The service was able to provide information in multiple formats to ensure it was accessible, these included the use of Language Line (a language interpretation service), an in-person British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter and through easy read documents.

Staff understood the importance of people having control of their care and told us that booking an in-person interpreter was preferrable to relying on Language Line to ensure people received accurate information to help inform their decisions.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider encouraged feedback from people and valued people’s experiences. People told us if they needed to raise a concern they would be able to speak to a member of staff about it. There were feedback forms available for completion by the site exit.

Three complaints were received by the service in the past year. Themes were dissatisfaction with verbal information provided, staff attitude/conduct and concerns over the content of reports. Actions were taken to address the complaints raised and information was shared with the wider team to aid learning.

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 service had considered peoples’ needs and had reasonable adjustments in place to support these, examples of this included having easy read documents, a hearing loop in reception, large print letters and out of hours screening (including weekend appointments). The site was accessible with a sloped ramp to access the screening building. The service worked with people’s GP practices who were asked to provide information for people with learning disabilities so a flag could be added to their record to enable the service to support them better. They did this by offering longer appointment times, so people were not rushed and had adequate time to understand the information provided to them.

The service completed an annual breast screening service report in 2022-2023 which undertook a health inequalities audit to identify interventions that could improve access and reduce inequalities. Future work was identified for the service’s long-term plans such as video messages which showed the ease of appointments, the video messaging could also serve to assist gaps in language.

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

Staff recognised barriers people could face and gave examples of how they overcame these barriers. An example of this was in relation to homeless clients, when mail was returned with no fixed abode, a text message was available to send, this meant the person had a reduced risk of not being screened due to environmental factors.

The screening service was aware of the additional barriers encountered by transgender and non-binary people and treated them with dignity and respect. There was a policy in place to ensure staff supported people and provided inclusive care to meet their needs, this incorporated using appropriate language and considering a person’s preferences. Staff also undertook training in mental health and dementia awareness to be able to best support people.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported people by ensuring decisions were informed and explained thoroughly. Leaflets were provided to people explaining future processes, this included what would happen when they would no longer receive automatic screening invitations due to their age and what to do next.

There were contingency plans in place to help deliver the service as usual where possible, examples of this were when clinics had been cancelled due to equipment issues on a screening van, the screening centre was offered as alternative location to ensure people were screened. Another example was when low staffing affected the service and extra clinics were created to have people screened.