St Helens Urgent Treatment Centre

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 was good at ensuring people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to their needs.

Feedback from people who used the service was that they were well supported to understand their presenting illness/ condition and were involved in decisions about their treatment.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to their work. The culture and ethos of the service was to ensure a high level of patient satisfaction, and this was evident across all areas of our assessment.

The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of the patient population and deliver a responsive service to people living in the locality.

Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared with other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

The service had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, by developing standard operating procedures in areas in response to patient need.

Data from key performance indicators was discussed with Commissioners on a regular basis and used to drive improvement. Feedback from the Commissioning team was positive, referencing the provider’s ability to support initiatives to reduce the burden on emergency departments and secondary care.

The provider told us of the positive impact of the introduction of a clinical lead role within the service in terms of providing an interface with other services, promoting service development and supporting treatment pathways.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. People were provided with information about their health and treatment options to enable them to make an informed decision.

Support was available for people with additional needs or communication needs. For example, people who required the services of an interpreter or easy read material.

The provider used systems to share information about patients effectively across services.

Patient information leaflets and safety netting advice was provided when patients might be at risk of deteriorating.

The provider’s website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

There were robust arrangements in line with data security standards for the availability, integrity and confidentiality of patient identifiable data and records.

The service was good at enabling people to share feedback. Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns, complaints or issues.

Feedback from people who used the service was used to drive service improvement. The provider monitored patient views via the NHS Friends and Family Test and NHS and online feedback. Complaints were investigated appropriately, and complainants were provided with a full response including an apology where this was appropriate and details for referring to a second stage of the complaints process.

Feedback shared with CQC directly by people who used the service was positive with regards to people feeling listened to and involved in decisions.

The service involved the views of patients, the public, staff and external partners to support high-quality sustainable services. A full and diverse range of patients’, staff and external partners’ views and concerns were encouraged, heard and acted upon. Feedback we received from commissioners of the service was wholly positive.

The service was transparent, collaborative and open with stakeholders about performance.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support.

People had equal access to care, treatment and support because the provider considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to ensure people’s individual needs could be met. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and addressing communication barriers.

The premises were purpose built and fully accessible with appropriate facilities and equipment to support patients who are physically disabled.

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the accessible information standards and communication needs of the people who used the service so that staff could communicate effectively with people. For example, some information was available in an easy read format and information could be provided in alternative languages and an interpreter service was available.

The provider monitored access and made changes in response so as to ensure patient satisfaction. People who used the service provided mainly positive feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. People could access the service easily, so they got the support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Attendance rates at the UTC showed that on average approximately 950 people attended the service per week. Data for the year 2024 to 2025 showed that the majority of people (79%) underwent an initial triage within 15 mins of booking into the service, and dependent on the categorisation of risk they were offered a more comprehensive assessment within a 4 hour timeframe. 65% received an assessment and treatment within 2 hours and 96% within 4 hours.

The service used a risk stratification tool to categorise patients who attended the service to facilitate prioritisation according to clinical need where more serious cases or young children could be prioritised as they arrived.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience in outcomes. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and they tailored the service to meet their needs in response to this.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the local patient population, and the difficulties people may encounter.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. We did not see any evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

The provide monitored data about the service to ensure that all people’s needs were met in a timely and responsive way.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their care and treatment and supported to plan for these were appropriate.

People were referred or signposted to alternative services when they required ongoing support or treatment.