Liverpool 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We assessed all quality statements from this key question. At our last assessment in November 2018, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment.

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. Records and discussions with staff demonstrated people’s care records were up to date relating to their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. The provider worked with local stakeholders to discuss the needs of the local population and people using all services across urgent care services.

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. People who used services gave positive feedback for how their needs had been met. Records showed people had been informed about their condition, care and treatment options, including any associated risks and any advice provided.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

Numerous examples were shown of how the service worked closely with the nearby emergency department to improve the patient pathway. Regular meetings took place, and staff were able to work across boundaries for shared learning. Joint standard operating procedures (SOPs) had been developed by both departments to improve patient flow and experience. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people. This included referrals to local paediatric hospitals, ambulance services and access to support from the trust mental health services.

The provider had arrangements in place to make direct referrals to surgical and medical units within the acute hospital to avoid patients needing to be transferred via the hospital emergency department. From a review of clinical records, we identified that one patient may not have been referred to specialist services as needed and this was reviewed promptly by the clinical team at the time of the assessment.

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

The provider had processes in place to ensure people received information that was tailored to their individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and providing interpretation and translation services for people who did not speak English or who used British Sign Language. The provider’s website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

Staff supported people who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services with accessible information, and provided safety netting advice when patients were at risk of deteriorating.

The service responded to patient feedback by developing a leaflet which explained the flow for patients through an Urgent Treatment Centre/ Walk-in centre in order to improve patient experience. Waiting times were displayed on TV screens on site to ensure that patients were informed and to improve their experience.

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. Results for the NHS Friends and Family Test and NHS online across April 2024 – April 2025 showed that patients said staff were friendly, they had been seen quickly, and good care was received. A small percentage reported a poor experience relating to waiting times, experience in triage being too quick and confusing, and the non-provision of a vending machine. At the time of assessment, 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); they were the point of contact for patients and service users wishing to raise a concern or potential complaint about their experiences. Our review of a sample of individual complaints made to the PALS team showed the service had reviewed all complaints and discussed these at staff meetings.

The service supported the local Healthwatch team during their assessment in May and June 2024. The team visited the site and surveyed patients as part of the review. Overall, the feedback was positive. The report included a small number of recommendations, which the service addressed by producing an action plan. All recommended actions were completed by the time of this assessment.

The provider ensured that people could access care, support and treatment in a way that reflected their needs. Leaders and staff were alerted 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 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 28452 people attended the service from April 2024 to April 2025. Data for the year 2024 to 2025 showed that the majority of people (61%) 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: 62% 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. There were clear referral pathways to a range of services to ensure people had easy access to the services they required it.

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, including Healthwatch, and made changes to reduce barriers to care and treatment. For example, earlier this year they introduced a sensory box to help reduce anxiety, particularly for people with autism or learning disabilities. Since implementing the sensory box and providing staff training on its use, patients had experienced noticeably less distress, and staff confidence in supporting sensory needs had significantly improved.

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 provider 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 were 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.