You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 February 2014
Date of Publication: 7 March 2014
Inspection Report published 07 March 2014 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 10 February 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

Patients’ privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

Initial consultations and injectable treatments were offered at the Foot and Ankle Clinic. More invasive treatments were provided at a choice of independent hospitals in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. Patients said they were offered a choice of venue when they booked their appointment. Patients were asked if they had medical insurance and were informed of charges if requested.

We spoke with four patients. One patient's comments summed up the general view: "(The consultant) went through everything from beginning to end." We reviewed the clinic website; it contained detailed information regarding a range of foot and ankle conditions and the common procedures performed by the clinic's surgeons. The Registered Manager told us patients were referred to the clinic website as a valuable source of information. One patient confirmed they had been shown where to access further information about their condition and treatment on the clinic website. This indicated patients were made aware of treatment options and possible outcomes to enable them to make an informed decision.

The premises were wheelchair accessible. We were told no patients in wheelchairs had been seen at the clinic, although patients who required the aid of crutches were often accommodated. During our visit we observed polite interactions between staff and patients. Patients told us they were rarely kept waiting past their allotted appointment time. This meant people were treated with respect.