Life Through The Lens - Stoke Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating is Requires improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant the service did not always make adjustments for service users and ensure they could obtain information on service users’ rights and how to complain and so on.

The service did not always make adjustments for service users or ensure they could obtain information on service users rights or how to complain. The service did not recognise staff success or provide staff with support for their own physical and emotional wellbeing needs.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with service users showed that they were discreet, respectful, and responsive, providing service users with help, emotional support, and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported service users to understand and manage their care, treatment, or condition. Staff directed service users to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Service users said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about service users. Friends and relatives were able to attend the scan if they wished to ensure the patient had support and felt they were involved.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with service users showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing service users with help, emotional support, and advice at the time they needed it.

Staff supported service users to understand and manage their care, treatment, or condition. Staff directed service users to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Service users said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about service users. Friends and relatives were able to attend the scan if they wished to ensure the patient had support and felt they were involved. Service users' children were also able to attend if they wished.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 1. The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service did not always make adjustments for service users, for example, by ensuring people’s access to premises and by meeting service users’ specific communication needs.

Staff did not always ensure that service users could obtain information on service users’ rights, such as how to make a complaint.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patient's had independence choice and control over their own treatment. They had access to an online booking system which enabled them to book at a time convenient to them.

Friends and relatives were able to attend the scan if they wished to ensure the patient had support and felt they were involved.

Staff talked service users through the ultrasound, explained what was on the screen and ensured service users had time to ask and answer any questions.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to service users. Staff told us they would telephone for an ambulance if an emergency arose.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff did not have access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.

The provider did not recognise staff success within the service for example, through staff awards.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. There was no lone working at the service, as there were always 2 staff on site.