Garston 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 provider understood the needs of the patient population. They collaborated with stakeholders and people who used the service to meet these needs and used their feedback to make improvements.

The culture and ethos of the service was to ensure a high level of patient satisfaction. Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to their work.

The service ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to their needs.

Staff and leaders communicated with people in a way that they could understand and asked about communication preferences.

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

People’s carers and advocates were identified and treated as important in the delivery of the service. An audit had recently been introduced to monitor how the service involved people important to the person using the service.

The provider worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of the local population and deliver a responsive service.

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

There were clear pathways that supported safe and continuous care for people when they were referred to other services. GPs were notified of a person’s attendance to enable follow on care and treatment.

The service had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, by developing a deep vein thrombosis service that provided diagnosis for suspected blood clots.

Data from key performance indicators was discussed with Commissioners on a regular basis and used to drive improvement.

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 people effectively across services.

Patient information leaflets and safety netting advice was provided when people’s health might be at risk of deteriorating.

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

The provider had up to date policies to support information governance that included data security, integrity and confidentiality of patient identifiable data and records. Staff had received training on information governance and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The provider monitored patient views through a variety of sources, including compliments, complaints, Healthwatch feedback and through the Friends and Family Test. NHS Friends and Family Test results for April 2024 – April 2025 showed there had been 77 responses with 88% indicating the service was very good or good. People reported staff were friendly, they were seen quickly, and good care was provided. A small percentage reported a poor experience mainly around waiting times. A quality improvement project was underway to support an increase in Friends and Family Test feedback.

The service had systems in place to support people to provide feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider had a Management of Complaints and Concerns Policy which indicated the service worked closely with the wider trust Patient Liaison Team (PALS) who were the point of contact for patients and their representatives wishing to raise a concern or potential complaint about their experiences. Our review of a sample of individual complaints showed the service had reviewed all complaints and there was a process for sharing any relevant learning with the staff team. Duty of candour was evident in responses to complaints.

Staff were knowledgeable about the complaint process and how to support people to make a complaint. The leadership team had clear oversight of any complaints and there was support in place for staff investigating complaints. There was a system to share positive feedback with staff.

The provider reviewed feedback from people who used the service and used this to support service improvement. Examples of actions included displaying updated wait times in the waiting area and developing a leaflet which explained the flow for patients through the UTC to improve their experience. The provider had taken action to make service improvements following a visit from Healthwatch in December 2023. This included making changes to information provided, staffing and support given to people who had a learning disability or neurodiversity.

The provider ensured that people could access care, support and treatment in a way that reflected their needs.

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

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

The provider monitored access and made changes in response so as to ensure patient safety and 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 2,500 people attended the service per month. Data for the year 2024 to 2025 showed that on average people waited 21 minutes to be triaged with 45% of people being triaged within 15 mins of booking into the service. Dependent on the categorisation of risk they were offered a more comprehensive assessment within a 4-hour timeframe. On average 61% received an assessment and treatment within 2 hours and 97% within 4 hours. Overall, there had been improvements to wait times compared to the preceding 12 months. We noted 3% of people left without treatment which was higher than the providers average of 2% across the provider’s urgent care and walk-in treatment centres.

The service used a risk stratification tool to categorise patients who attended the service to facilitate prioritisation according to clinical need. There were clear referral pathways to a range of services to ensure people had easy access to the services they required.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience in outcomes. Staff and leaders ensured they were able to recognise people 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. Links were in place with other organisations to support vulnerable people, such as the homeless.

Staff and leaders listened to feedback from people who used the service and other stakeholders, such as Healthwatch and made changes to reduce barriers to care and treatment. For example, they had introduced a sensory box earlier this year, to reduce anxiety, particularly for people with autism or a learning disability. Since the introduction of the sensory box and training for staff on how to use it, it was reported that there had been a marked reduction in the distress experienced by patients and staff confidence in supporting people’s sensory needs had been enhanced.

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.

The provider had a process in place for identifying people in vulnerable circumstances, for example, people receiving palliative care. Staff could access information about these people from their GP records to enable them to meet their needs. Alerts could be placed on peoples records to enable staff to identify vulnerable patients. Information about the care and treatment provided was passed on to the person’s GP so they were aware of any follow up action, where necessary. Staff told us they liaised with other health and social care professionals to support people and plan how to meet their future needs.