Kaizen Medical Ltd

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 for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Our review of clinical records showed people who used the service participated in planning their care and were included in making decisions regarding their treatment.

The service provided person-centred care by offering a range of treatment options without pressuring people into booking. Care was tailored to each person’s needs, background and lifestyle, including their reasons for seeking treatment. Treatment plans were based on personalised discussions, and staff supported people to ask questions and make informed choices.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Appointment dates and times could be adjusted to meet individual needs, subject to clinical capacity. The service aimed to ensure people saw the same clinician throughout their care wherever possible and consulted with people about alternative arrangements when this was not possible.

The provider worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its local population. For example, it signposted people to specialist services and nutritionists. The service used its front windows to display awareness campaigns, including Pride, Breast Cancer Awareness and Mental Health Awareness. Staff told us these displays had received positive feedback from people who used the service and members of the local community.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services where required. Leaflets were also available in accessible formats if needed, in line with the Accessible Information Standard. The service used an accessibility feature within its clinical system to provide information, including emails, in alternative formats, such as different fonts, sizes and colours, where required to meet people’s individual needs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service collected feedback from people who used it through a variety of methods, including verbal comments, suggestion boxes, and experience surveys.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. The service had received 1 formal complaint, which had been investigated and responded to appropriately. Learning from this complaint was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of feedback from people who used the service, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, the service offered extended appointments to people who may need extra support. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The service provided treatment across 2 floors. However, to support people with mobility needs or other accessibility requirements, appointments could be accommodated in a treatment room on the ground floor.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet.

Staff discussed treatment options with people, including which treatments were suitable and the outcomes they could expect. The service had a process to assess whether treatment was appropriate. Where an initial assessment identified that the service could not meet a person’s needs, staff discussed alternative care and treatment options and signposted them to appropriate services.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People were supported to consider their wishes for treatment planning in line with any complex health conditions people were already undergoing. For example, if a person became too frail or unwell to continue with planned treatment, staff reviewed and adapted the approach to meet their needs. This included delaying treatment, changing the treatment method, lowering treatment thresholds where appropriate and offering longer appointments.