Eastham Walk In Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This was the first comprehensive assessment for this service as a location registered with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive for being treated with kindness, empathy and compassion.

The provider shared feedback with us that they had received through a number of sources including their on line ‘Your experience’ patient feedback survey and NHS Friends and Family test and this showed that approximately 85% of people who used the service over the past 12 months gave positive feedback about the service.

Staff displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards people. Discussions with staff and observations of staff interactions indicated a caring, patient centred staff team and they told us they gave people appropriate and timely information to understand their care, treatment, or condition.

There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality in the reception area. For example, if people were distressed or wanted to speak to reception staff in confidence.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

Patients’ individual needs and equality characteristics were understood, and services were provided to meet these. Patients’ communication needs were identified and met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

Staff had been provided with training in equal opportunities and staff we spoke with told us how they ensured the individual communication needs of patients were identified and accommodated.

The service promoted people’s independence, choice and decision making so that people had control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff gave people the information they needed to make an informed decision about their care and treatment and about referral to other services.

Patients’ communication needs were identified and met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Staff had been provided with training in equal opportunities.

People were provided with information to support them in deciding if the centre was the best service to meet their needs or if an alternative service would be better placed.

The service responded to people’s immediate needs. There was a system for clinical triage of patients. Data from January to August 2025 showed that the majority of people who used the service, on average 94%, had undergone an assessment, treatment and discharge within 4 hours. The data for patients to have undergone triage within 15 minutes was lower, ranging between 38% and 52% which equated to an average of 43%. The provider was working to improve this performance indicator.

A risk stratification tool was used 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.

Staff directed patients to the most appropriate service to meet their needs if it was decided at triage or assessment that an alternative service would be more appropriate for this.

Information about staff compliance with training in adult basic and immediate life support and paediatric basic and immediate life support showed that not all members of the team were up to date with this. It was noted that in June 2025 compliance with this training was only reaching 75% and 58% of staff respectively. This had since improved to 82% and 86% at the time of our assessment. Members of the team had completed training in the signs and symptoms of sepsis. However, for the majority of members of the team this was a brief session provided during their induction. This did not provide assurance that staff training was appropriately detailed and current to ensure staff were up to date with evolving guidance and the required skills.

At times of high demand the service moved to triage only but this was managed effectively without compromise to patient safety as those with the most acute needs continued to be prioritised for assessment and treatment.

Support systems were in place for staff welfare as would be expected in a trust and leaders told us there was a strong emphasis on the safety and well-being of staff. Members of the leadership team told us about some of the trust wide systems they had in place for supporting staff and provided examples whereby staff views and feedback had been listened to and used to identify risk and inform service development.

The 2024 NHS staff survey results for the trust showed that staff found challenges in; maintaining morale, workplace pressures, staffing levels and opportunities for involvement in decision making. In response, the trust had developed a targeted improvement plan. However, feedback from front line staff indicated that they had not seen improvement in these areas to date.

Staff we spoke with or received CQC feedback forms from shared concerns about working at the service. Staff said they did not feel listened to and they did not have confidence that the provider was acting upon their views or feedback with regards to staffing levels, training and support and the risk this could compromise to patient safety if improvements were not made.

Some staff did tell us that the provider considered their individual circumstances/support needs and supported flexible working when required.

Staff had access to emergency call buttons to summon help if required. On-site security was also present.