This was the first time we rated this service.
We rated it as good because:
The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. They managed medicines well. Staff collected patient feedback and used it to improve the service.
Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough time to reflect and ask questions, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on their procedures and supported them to make decisions about their care. Key services were available six days a week.
Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients.
The service planned care to meet the needs of patients, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.
- There was a low response rate to formal patient feedback questionnaires given out by the clinic, although we saw more patients did leave feedback online.
- The service did not submit private patient episode data to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) as per Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).