Queen's Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed 2 quality statements under the effective key question. Patients received comprehensive assessments and follow up support including referrals to other agencies. Staff ensured practice remained aligned with updated clinical guidance and staff understood the importance of seeking informed consent.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

On arrival at the SARC patients were greeted by a clinician who carried out a comprehensive assessment of their needs. When cases were recent and within the forensic window staff carried out a forensic medical examination documenting injuries using body mapping and a colposcope to record digital images which could be used as evidence. A colposcope is a specialist piece of equipment which is used to capture magnified images of the cervix, vulva, and vagina as part of the examination. Patients also received a thorough review of their physical and mental health, sexual health, and other factors such as family life. This ensured any immediate or ongoing risks to patients were identified and support could be provided following attendance at the SARC.

Staff received specialist training in female genital mutilation (FGM) and a policy was in place to support staff in identification and management of patients suspected to have experienced FGM, including a specialised risk assessment.

Where necessary the SARC staff made referrals to relevant services for follow on support, such as local Children and Young People Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ChiSVA) services. Patients were also referred to sexual health services, the GP or mental health services for any follow-on care needed.

Following a full assessment, patients were provided with any required prescribed medicines, such as hepatitis B vaccination or emergency contraception. Patient records that we reviewed were detailed and described the care and treatment offered and provided to patients, as well as any follow up actions.

Staff routinely peer reviewed cases to identify learning. This included a review of assessment proformas and any colposcope images that had been taken to check that appropriate care and treatment had been provided to the patient.

SARC managers ensured that updates to guidance (such as the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicines) were made available to staff to ensure they had access to the latest information to inform their practice.

The judgement for Delivering evidence-based care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from patients or their responsible adult prior to carrying out any examinations. Records reviewed demonstrated that staff regularly reviewed patients’ consent throughout their assessment and prior to making any onward referrals. Children and young people were supported to communicate and make decisions about their care and treatment so that they received person-centred care and treatment in line with their best interests.

Patient records we viewed documented consent, capacity, and choice in relation to physical examination, management of intimate images, information sharing, and onward referrals.

Staff we spoke with understood the importance of gaining consent from younger children and using the Gillick competence assessment tool.

Staff received training for confidentiality and consent, and in the Mental Capacity Act. Those we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements of the Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines and we saw evidence in the records of this being used appropriately.