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. There was a standard operating procedure in place to guide administration staff and inform decision making regarding patient applications. Administration staff reviewed applications daily and there were no delays in actioning requests.

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.

At the previous inspection in June 2025, we found that administrative staff did not consistently prioritise patient applications daily, resulting in delays in processing requests. In addition, there were no standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place to support staff decision-making or provide clear guidance.

At this inspection, we found that managers had introduced a new SOP to guide administrative staff in managing patient applications for routine appointments. Patients submitted applications via the prison’s kiosk system, and staff were now reviewing these daily. On the day of our inspection, there were only 7 applications on the system.

The SOP provided clear guidance on how to process applications, including defined escalation pathways for urgent or ‘red flag’ symptoms, such as chest pain or shortness of breath. To minimise duplication of appointments, staff now checked appointment ledgers and waiting lists before booking, ensuring patients were not scheduled more than once. Applications were then added to a waiting list for triage by a GP or advanced clinical practitioner (ACP).

We reviewed the GP/ACP triage list and found 147 patients awaiting review. There were no overdue tasks, and the longest waiting time was 10 working days, representing an improvement since the previous inspection. Clinic schedules were planned each Thursday, based on staffing availability for the following week. Typically, 3 GP/ACP triage clinics were scheduled weekly, each with 26 appointment slots. The GP/ACP triaged each case and determined whether a face-to-face appointment, telephone consultation, or written response was appropriate.

Staff reported that clinic capacity was managed flexibly in response to demand, with the ability to increase or decrease triage provision based on the volume of patient applications.

Nursing staff were no longer booking patients directly into clinic ledgers. Instead, they were expected to discuss urgent cases directly with a GP or ACP. Embargoed appointments were available daily, and GPs/ACPs attended daily safety huddles where emerging concerns could be escalated promptly.

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.