HMP Durham

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

We looked at 1 quality statement in this key question. Administration staff did not prioritise

patient applications daily and there were delays in actioning requests. There were no standard operating procedures to guide administration staff and inform decision making.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Person-centred Care is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Listening to and involving people is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

Health staff used the task function on the electronic care records system to make requests for GP and other health appointments for patients. Administration staff reviewed these requests regularly and allocated appointments into clinic ledgers or added the request to the GP/ACP triage waiting list. Nursing staff who requested same day appointments were often advised (via the task system) to speak with the ACP/GP directly. However, there was a risk that nursing staff would not pick up responses sent to them directly, for example, if they were no longer on shift. There were no SOPs in place to guide staff on this activity.

We reviewed the GP/ACP triage list. There were 180 patients on the list, including 13 tasks that were overdue and some requests that had been waiting for 4 weeks. Staff told us there had been some sickness absence and short-term cancellation of a GP clinic and this had increased the numbers on the list. Staff planned clinic schedules on a weekly basis and when we reviewed the triage waiting list later the same day, this had reduced to 107.

Patients submitted applications on the prison’s kiosk system to request primary healthcare services. These were not reviewed daily as a priority. Applications were initially reviewed by the administration team who added them to the GP/ACP waiting list for triage. However, we found 272 applications waiting to be reviewed from 5 June 2025, 13 days prior to our inspection visit. Staff told us they did not prioritise applications, they looked at the one with the longest waiting time first. We reviewed the oldest request for an appointment and found that the patient had already been seen by healthcare and his needs had been met. This meant that while these patients remained on the list, other patients could experience delays in having their needs assessed and managed. We reviewed the kiosk application list later that day, this had increased to 285. There were no SOPs in place to guide staff on this activity.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.