Eastham Walk In 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 was the first comprehensive assessment for this service as a location registered with CQC. This key question has been rated as requires improvement.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they 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. People were 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 at the location was to ensure a high level of patient satisfaction.

The service worked in partnership with other services to deliver a responsive service to people living in the locality.

Information was shared with other services to support good outcomes for people.

The service had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community, for example, by providing dedicated and trained staff to provide a wound dressing service in response to patient need in the locality. However, staff told us this was having a significant impact on the service in terms of staffing capacity and demand particularly when people using the service required sometimes complex wound dressing.

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 the Emergency Department (ED or AE) and secondary care.

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. Information was shared appropriately when people needed to use alternative services to ensure they received the required ongoing support or treatment.

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.

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.

The provider monitored patient views and took action to respond and improve patient experience. Recent actions included; providing more clear and accurate information on waiting times in order to manage patient expectations, improving staff engagement on waiting times and the commencement of a pilot to reduce the impact of a wound dressing service.

Information about how to make a complaint was readily available. Complaints were investigated and complainants were provided with a response including an apology where this was appropriate and details for referring to a second stage of the complaints process. The service had been subject to a low number (2) of complaints over the past 12 months. Governance arrangements for the management of complaints were in place and there was oversight and sign off of complaints in line with this. We looked at the detail of two complaints. We found a discrepancy in the outcome of one of these compared to the response provided to the complainant. The investigation of the complaint was not sufficiently detailed and learning from the complaint had not been shared in a timely way to prevent a recurrence. This indicated that the system in place to manage complaints and the governance of complaints was not sufficiently robust to ensure complaints were managed effectively.

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 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, information could be made 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 and fully accessible with appropriate facilities and equipment to support patients who were physically disabled.

The provider monitored data about access and made changes in response so as to ensure patient satisfaction. For example, the number of people who attended the service for wound dressing had increased over the previous 12 months. In response to this the provider was running a pilot to introduce a wound dressing clinic with booked appointments.

Attendance rates at the service showed that on average approximately 270 people attended the service per week. Data showed that compliance with key performance indicators for the period January 2025 to August 2025 was:

• Key performance indicator for 4 hours treatment and discharge ranged between 92% and 99% with an average of 94% achievement.
• The number of patients treated and discharged within two hours ranged between 59% to 69% with an average of 64%.
• Key performance for triage within 15 minutes ranged from 38% to 52% with an average of 43% achievement.
• The triage wait time was between 21 and 29 minutes with an average of 25 minutes.
• The overall average wait for patients was 99 minutes.

People who used the service were assessed according to clinical need, with those the most urgent need were given priority.

The ways in which people could access the service supported equity in access, experience and outcomes. The provider sought ways to address 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.

Systems were in place to meet accessible information standards (reasonable adjustments for addressing communication barriers), and premises and facilities were accessible. 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 people’s needs were met in a timely and responsive way. 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.

The provider told us about their work with organisations who support people with learning disabilities and autistic people so as to better understanding people’s lived experience and to ensure adjustments were made to how services were provided. The provider has implemented approved training to support people with a learning disability and autistic people, delivered through partnership with a local support organisation. The work had led to some direct improvement in the service, for example, the identification of a quiet space as a waiting area where there is reduced lighting and noise and the provision of information and items to help reduce stress and anxiety whilst people were waiting to be seen.

The provider had a process in place for identifying people in vulnerable circumstances. Staff could access information about patients from their GP records to enable them to meet their needs. Alerts could be placed on people’s records to enable staff to identify vulnerable patients. Information about the care and treatment provided was passed on people’s GP so they were aware of any follow up action, where necessary.

People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their care and treatment.

People were referred back to their GP or signposted to alternative services when they required ongoing support or treatment. Information shared with other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

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