Old Orchard Consulting Rooms

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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 were supported to understand their condition and were involved in decisions about their treatment. People knew what to do if they experienced any problems or had questions following their treatment. People were welcome to bring adult family members or friends with them to their consultation if they wanted this type of support.

The service typically provided consultations with a specialised clinician as part of a wider course of treatment including surgery. The staff understood that people might have diverse health and care needs and were committed to tailoring the approach to each person. The service was able to offer continuity of care with a named clinician and people usually contacted the service with the aim of consulting with a specific clinician. The same clinician they consulted at the service would normally carry out any subsequent treatment, such as surgery, at a suitably equipped location.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We were told people using the service were typically able to speak English. However, an interpreter could be arranged in discussion with the person in advance should this be required. Staff were aware of the risks of relying on family members to interpret.

Written information leaflets about specific conditions were available through the service’s clinicians.

The service’s website included information about the services provided and the named clinicians who were available and their specialty. People were advised in advance of the costs for consultations and courses of treatment.

The service enabled people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care or treatment. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had not received any complaints over the previous 12 months. We saw evidence, for example, in the form of information on display, that the leaders were keen to understand and resolve complaints should these arise. We were told that learning from complaints would be included in team discussion as and when the service should receive any.

The service made sure that people could access the service and treatment, aftercare and related advice when they needed it.

People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, each clinician was available at the service on certain days and times, but they could be flexible to meet the needs of the people using the service. Waiting times, delays and cancellations were minimal and managed appropriately. The service told us they would discuss any reasonable adjustments with people before their first consultation enabling them to access the service. The service was accessible to people with mobility difficulties with the waiting area and consultation room located on the ground floor.

Staff and leaders understood the needs of people using the service and had tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive and non-judgemental approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

People typically attended the service for a specific course of treatment. The service provided support and treatment to help people meet their goals over the course of their treatment.