GenesisCare Centre for Radiotherapy at Cromwell Hospital

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

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people's communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people's care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people's health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessment findings:

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Referral assessments included communication and psychological needs. Access issues, speech, anxiety, well-being, mental health were also covered. Any aspect of need that was raised through the referral assessment was logged into the health assessment. The administrative team gave a courtesy call to each patient the day before their first visit to confirm this information and ask if any further assistance would be needed on the day of their visit. The clinical radiographer would reconfirm this information at the initial appointment.

Behind the main reception was a patient accessibility box. This included useful items that patients may find essential such as reading glasses, phone charges, left-handed pens, shoehorns and a board for writing.

The service planned and delivered people's care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Assessment findings:

The service planned and delivered people's care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. There was a national clinical reference group which included keeping up to date with changes to guidance and the latest evidence-based publications. This was used to inform changes to policy and practice

MR-Linac was practised at the service. This was a relatively new technology underpinned by research into new techniques. Practitioners contributed to new literature and publications which influenced new practice and learning. The clinical escalation group was a provider wide group of principal radiographers, physicists and dosimetrists who, along with the head of radiotherapy and head of medical physics, worked with the service to peer review cases where a consultant had recommended treatment outside standard radiotherapy treatments. They acted as a first point of escalation for any clinical issues relating to radiotherapy patients at any stage of the pathway.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Assessment findings:

The service worked well across teams. Care was coordinated across different disciplines and support services which combined to provide good care and treatment. This included teams for each of the three machines, an administrative team and holistic services such as exercise medicine and complementary therapies. Assessments were shared to provide continuous care. There was a close working relationship with the co-located acute hospital who provided several services managed by service level agreements. This included portering, security, cleaning, resident medical officers, dietitian, facilities, medical support and estates. These were monitored and managed through audits and follow up meetings by service leads. Staff told us that patient care was enhanced through good working relationships with the hospital.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Assessment findings:

>

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Assessments were holistic and included supporting people to live a healthier lifestyle. Patients were provided with information promoting healthy lifestyles and living with long term conditions. This included written information, information on eating well during cancer and tailored exercise regimes to promote wellbeing and independence. Patients also had access to a range of holistic therapies to promote wellbeing, this was run by a contracted charity which included counselling, massage therapy and reflexology.

The service routinely monitored people's care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Assessment findings:

The service routinely monitored people's care and treatment with the aim of providing a consistent quality of care and treatment. Turnaround times from referral to treatment were monitored for performance and to improve patient experience. Data showed referral to treatment for both MR-Linac and CT planning scans. This data demonstrated the service had favourable referral to treatment times when compared to other GenesisCare sites. The data also enabled the service to understand the reasons for delay, such as machine breakdown or power failure. Other planned delays were due to patient condition or patient preference.

Clinical outcomes were monitored through ongoing research to demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments and techniques. Clinical reference groups were monthly multidisciplinary clinical forums chaired by the medical director and made up of specialists for each of the five tumour groups treated at GenesisCare.

Patients completed a short survey at the beginning of their treatment to assist the service understand their needs better and adapt what was offered to meet individual needs. A survey took place at the end of treatment, where patients were asked about a variety of aspects of their experience which were broken down into eight sections. This included first impressions, treatment / procedure, care, consultant, post treatment and overall experience. There were free text boxes for people to give more information. Each question was scored from 1 - 10. There was a survey response rate of 75%. Results showed an overall satisfaction score of 89%. People had mentioned all members of the teams, from treating consultants to receptionists and commented on how warm and welcoming, caring and friendly they had been, mentioning staff by first names. They reported that any questions they had, were answered swiftly and expertly which people found helpful. There were items for learning and improvement too, these included a shortage of disabled parking bays and not being informed about machine breakdown before they had set off to the centre. Results were reviewed by the centre leader and fed into monthly all staff meetings for learning.

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

Assessment findings:

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Information regarding treatment was provided to patients at the point of contact with the service and during consultation. This included realistic expectations of individual treatment programmes. Formal consent was completed by the treating radiographer on the day of treatment. Patients told us they were given opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification regarding any aspect of their treatment at every stage of the process, including during treatment.