Cambridge Clear Ear

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 the service understood the needs of the people and communities it served and put them at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We looked for evidence people accessed the care and treatment they needed.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating remains good.

This is because people were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 had processes in place to make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff considered the physical, psychological, and social needs of their patients, including people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local community. This insight enabled the delivery of joined-up, flexible care that supported patient choice and ensured continuity. If patients required further support following treatment, then they would be advised of this during the appointment and told when to come back for further assessment or treatment. If it was identified that they required further treatment that could not be provided at the service, then they would be referred on or signposted to an appropriate service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were pictures and written information available to assist with explanations. Equipment used for micro suction were demonstrated so people could feel and hear what it sounded like. Education was provided on ear functions and the potential risks of procedures were explained. Post procedure leaflets were available, detailing the need to keep the treated ear dry and signs and symptoms of infection.

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. Although the service had not received any recent formal complaints, we were told people using the service had voiced that they had struggled to find the clinic. As a result, a video was created and put on the service website that showed patients how to find the clinic.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was able to offer appointments at different times to meet the needs of the local community and offered appointments at weekends and evenings. Due to the nature of the service appointments and consultations were face to face. Reasonable adjustments were available for people with limited mobility and wheelchair users.

Staff 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 understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The service proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

Staff we spoke with understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision-making. People were supported to consider their wishes for important life changes and there were systems in place to support vulnerable people, which included people who were approaching the end of their life.
Staff always considered patients’ ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions. However, if a valid DNACPR form was not seen by staff, they would perform CPR in the event of a cardiac arrest in line with national guidelines.