Arrowe Park 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 this assessment we rated the service 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 and collaborated with local stakeholders to discuss the requirements of both the local population and people using all urgent care services. They analysed geography, presenting complaints, streaming activity from the emergency department, waiting times, and peak periods, then adjusted their services to meet the needs of attending patients.

The service fostered a culture and ethos that focused on achieving a high level of patient satisfaction. Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach in their work. Patient feedback collected by the provider showed 83% positive responses and 11% negative responses about patient care and treatment.

Records we reviewed confirmed that staff informed people about their condition, care, and treatment options, including associated risks and any advice provided.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so they delivered care that was joined-up, flexible, and supported choice and continuity. They collaborated with other services to meet the needs of the patient population.

Staff demonstrated how they worked closely with the on-site emergency department to improve the patient pathway. In September 2025, the service introduced a joint standard operating procedure to enhance patient flow and experience.

The service maintained appropriate connections and made referrals to other services promptly. Staff effectively and timely managed information shared by other services to support good outcomes for people. They referred patients to, or sought advice from, emergency departments, tissue viability teams, stroke services, DVT clinics, urgent community response teams, and district nurses.

Staff worked to ensure care was joined up for people. Leaders described how they applied the ‘Making Every Contact Count’ (MECC) principles to ensure staff followed clear processes when patients presented with mental health issues, learning disabilities, or neurodiversity, such as autism or ADHD. This approach connected patients to the right support and safeguarded them and others appropriately. However, we identified one person who may not have experienced a positive patient journey due to a lack of communication and collaboration, followed by a missed learning opportunity by the provider.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing, and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. Staff ensured that people received information tailored to their individual needs through established processes.

The provider’s website included information about treatments the service offered and how people could access them.

The provider collected feedback from patients through a ‘Your Experience’ form on the website and offered support to complete the questionnaire. For example, an application could read the questions out for people who could not see, and for those whose first language was not English, they could access the information in their own language. Text could also be magnified to suit specific needs.

Staff understood data protection requirements and collected and shared information appropriately. We saw that leaders investigated and resolved information governance breaches appropriately.

Staff we spoke to or who provided feedback said they had the skills they needed to communicate effectively with the people they supported.

The provider actively gathered patient feedback through the Friends and Family Test, compliments, complaints, and other patient experience platforms.

To better understand the needs of people whose first language was not English and who required interpretation services, the provider participated in a Wirral multi-cultural health event in collaboration with Wirral University Teaching Hospital.

A team recently conducted a thematic analysis of “poor” and “very poor” feedback to identify areas for improvement. The review found that many respondents did not leave comments explaining their negative ratings. Positive feedback highlighted what mattered most to patients as - being listened to, treated with kindness and respect, receiving information they could understand, and feeling genuinely cared for by staff.

Volunteers contacted service users who were digitally excluded to ensure they could provide feedback through alternative channels.

The service also worked with organisations supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic people to improve staff understanding of their needs, make appropriate adjustments, and enhance communication. To date, 99% of staff had completed face-to-face training in this area.

The provider ensured that people could access care, support, and treatment in ways that reflected their individual needs. Leaders and staff actively identified and addressed discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage certain groups in accessing care, treatment, or support.

The provider considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to meet those needs. This included accommodating disabled patients and addressing communication barriers, such as providing information in alternative languages or arranging interpreter services.

Although the premises were temporary prior to the move to a one-door facility with the emergency department, the accommodation did not disadvantage patients with physical disabilities.

The provider monitored access and implemented changes to improve patient safety and satisfaction. For example, they introduced television screens and ensured staff provided regular updates to manage patient expectations around waiting times.

Data submitted by the provider showed that between September 2024 and August 2025, fewer than 70% of patients were triaged within 15 minutes. Performance dropped further in March, April, and May 2025, when the target achieved was less than 50%. The service identified that lengthy triage templates contributed to delays and introduced a new acuity tool in June 2025. However, at the time of assessment, data from July and August 2025 showed no improvement, with only around 50% of patients seen within the 15-minute timeframe.

Data provided to Commissioners indicated that the average total waiting time at the UTC was 91 minutes, with performance against the four-hour target at 97.7%, slightly above the expected standard of 95%.

Leaders proactively identified and addressed barriers to improve people’s experiences and outcomes. Staff and leaders recognised individuals most likely to experience inequality and tailored the service to meet their needs.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a strong understanding of the local patient population and the challenges they may face. They maintained links with other organisations to support vulnerable groups, and people with physical or mental disabilities.

Staff and leaders listened to feedback from service users and other stakeholders, including the Integrated Care Board (ICB), and implemented changes to reduce barriers to care and treatment.

The provider demonstrated that equality, diversity, and inclusion training was one of the core requirements for staff working within the service. We did not observe any evidence of discrimination in care and treatment decisions.

The provider continuously monitored service data to ensure that all patients’ needs were met in a timely and responsive manner.

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 people’s 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.