Treat It Clinic

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

This key question has been rated as requires improvement. We found patients were involved in assessments of their needs and staff completed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. However, care was not always based on latest evidence and good practice. The provider was strengthening processes, but it will take time before these become consistently embedded in practice.

This service scored 67 (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, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The clinical need for prescribing medicines was assessed using tools to assess anxiety and pain. Although these tools were limited in terms of the questions asked, all patients were reviewed by the multidisciplinary team before medicines were prescribed.

The cannabis-based products for medicinal use (CBPM) prescribed at the service were unlicenced. Unlicensed medicines are medicines which have not been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Unlicenced medicines can be prescribed to meet an unmet clinical need of a patient where other licenced treatments have not worked. CBPMs were legalised in the UK on 1 November 2018, but the regulations around their use and supply remain strict. These medicines were prescribed to meet the needs of people where other licenced treatments had not been effective.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with current guidance.

When patients were moved into the shared care of the prescribing pharmacist, they did not always have all the information to make decisions about prescribing.

Non specialist staff were able to make significant changes in strength and quantity of medicines without informing the specialist doctor. The policy did not cover when to refer to the specialist for changes to strengths or quantity.

We reviewed 4 records and could not find evidence that the patient patient’s GP had been informed during the assessment. However, following the inspection the provider highlighted written correspondence that had been sent to these patients that confirmed communication had taken place in line with best practice at the time of their treatment.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

The service routinely monitored peoples care through 6 monthly MDT meetings. However, there were gaps in patient records and multidisciplinary meeting notes. This did not ensure that outcomes were consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded, and staff had completed training to support this.