Medway Community Healthcare C.I.C

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

Are Community Health Services Urgent Treatment Centre Caring? This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained unchanged. We rated Caring as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

We spoke with 20 people using the service, including patients and their carers, who provided direct feedback about the care and support they received from the service. While most people felt that staff were compassionate, respectful, kind and considerate, 2 patients said they had been waiting to be seen by a clinician for over two hours, but no staff member had checked on them about their pain.

The service did not ensure that when confidential information was being obtained by reception staff, this was done discreetly. We overheard, and patients reported that they could hear when other patients provided their personal information to reception staff, including the reason for attending the urgent treatment centre.

Patients told us that staff were compassionate and kind. Patients gave mixed feedback about how staff interacted with them. While patients felt that the clinicians took time to interact with them during consultation, patients felt they were not always informed of what was going on while they waited. Patients generally felt that interactions with staff were respectful and considerate.

Staff understood and respected the individual needs of each patient and showed understanding and a non-judgmental attitude when caring for or discussing patients’ additional needs, for example their mental health needs.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients and how they may relate to care needs.

Patients we spoke with said they did not know how to make a complaint. The service did not display a notice or poster informing people about how to make a complaint or raise a concern. Staff told us there were tiny information slips on how to contact the service. However, this was not readily available to patients. In addition, the provider did not make it clear to people about their complaints and concerns process.

The services’ most recent friend and family test survey conducted between July and September 2025 showed that 38% of patients felt that their experience of the service was poor or very poor while, 52% felt their experience was good or very good.

Staff ensured that patients were treated as individuals, and their diverse needs were recognised and responded to appropriately. Staff took account of people’s personal circumstances, preferences and needs when delivering care.

Patients and their carers told us, and we observed that staff listened to people and took time to understand their reasons for attending the urgent treatment centre. Staff delivered care and treatment in a way that tailored to the individuals presenting conditions, communication needs and emotional state. This helped people feel acknowledged and respected as individuals.

The service made adjustments for patients with limited mobility including wheelchair users. The service was on the ground floor next to the accident and emergency department and it had a wheelchair access. There were wheelchairs available for patients and staff assisted people when required. The service had a translation and interpretation service provided by a third-party organisation for patients with extra communication needs, and people who do not speak the English language.

Patients and their carers were involved in decisions about their care wherever possible. Staff explained treatment options and waiting times. Patients reported that staff did not always inform them if there was going to be a delay.

The service recognised and responded to people with additional or complex needs. Reasonable adjustments were made for people with learning disabilities, cognitive impairment, mental health needs or sensory impairments. There were easy read leaflets for patients about the service, although this was not always on display. Staff demonstrated awareness of the importance of flexibility, such as allowing more time for assessments or adapting communication styles to meet individual needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights. The service had limited information for patients on how to complain. All the patients we spoke with said they did not know how to complain, if the care and treatment they received was not adequate. Some patients said they would speak to the reception staff if they needed to make a complaint.

Patients were provided with drinks while they waited. There was a cold-water dispenser on the unit. Patients and carers who attended the service could get food and hot drinks from the hospital canteen which was easily accessible.

Staff gave patients and those close to them help, emotional support and advice when they needed it.

Staff supported patients who became distressed in an open environment and helped them maintain their privacy and dignity. There were privacy curtains to maintain people’s dignity and privacy and often asked other visitors to clear the area.

Staff knew and understood how to break bad news and demonstrated empathy when having difficult conversations. They understood the emotional and social impact that a person’s care, treatment or condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them.

People were supported to maintain their independence and were encouraged to be actively involved in decisions about their care. Staff recognised the importance of choice and control, even within the constraints of an urgent treatment environment.

People told us they were given clear information about their assessment, treatment options and likely outcomes. Staff explained patient’s condition, next steps and sought people’s consent before providing care. This supported people to make informed decisions and feel in control of their care where possible.

Staff promoted independence by encouraging people to do as much for themselves as they were able to. Where people required additional support, this was offered in a way that maintained dignity and avoided unnecessary dependence.

On most occasions, staff showed flexibility in responding to individual circumstances, including supporting people to manage pain, mobility or anxiety while waiting for treatment. Although some people reported that staff had not responded in a timely way to managing their pain.

Staff respected patient’s choices. Where appropriate, staff discussed alternatives such as self‑care advice, onward referral, or attendance at other services, ensuring people understood the options available to them. Family members or carers were involved at the person’s request and when it was in their best interests.

However, we noted that during periods of high demand, time pressures sometimes limited opportunities for in‑depth discussions. Despite this, clinicians consistently made reasonable efforts to keep people informed, manage expectations and support choice wherever possible.

We received mixed feedback from people about how staff responded to their immediate needs when they attended the service. While most people told us that staff acted quickly when they arrived and that their symptoms and concerns were taken seriously, some patients felt staff did not immediately address their concerns. For example, 6 out of the 20 patients we spoke with said that they were in pain and staff had not checked on them or offered them any assistance.

The service had a noticeboard which informed people of the waiting times. The average waiting time at the time of the inspection was 2 hours. Some patients reported they were not informed of what was happening as reception staff asked them to wait to be seen by a clinician. Patients reported that communication could be better and that staff could have explained to them when there were delays.

Staff ensured that when patients attended the service specific risk issues were identified such as falls or pressure ulcers and, on most occasions, staff responded to these risks accordingly.

Patients attending the urgent treatment centre were triaged to assess their clinical needs. Although staff raised concerns that sometimes patients were triaged and wrongly sent to the urgent treatment centre. Staff said they were not always able to meet their needs, so they had to refer them back to the accident and emergency department. Staff told us this often led to long delays resulting in complaints from patients. This meant that sometimes people with urgent or deteriorating conditions may experience delays in receiving prompt and timely intervention.

Staff ensured that people’s immediate needs were identified and responded to. Staff were knowledgeable, responsive and worked well together to ensure people received timely assessment and treatment appropriate to their presenting condition.

There was a rapid review team within the UTC, who had a good awareness of clinical risk, and responded appropriately when people’s conditions changed. Escalation processes were clearly understood and used effectively, including seeking senior clinical input or transferring people to other services when required. This supported safe decision‑making and continuity of care.

Staff told us the service had a zero-tolerance policy towards violence and aggression When the behaviour of a patient or person visiting the service becomes heightened, they would attempt verbal deescalation and always try to reassure the individual.

The provider recognised that staff wellbeing was paramount to delivering a good service, and it ensured that staff felt supported in their roles.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued by their colleagues and line managers. There was a positive team culture, and staff described being able to raise concerns, seek advice and escalate issues when required. Leaders were visible and approachable, and staff felt their leaders listened to them and valued their contributions.

The service ensured staff had access to appropriate training, supervision and professional development. Staff were competent in their roles and understood their responsibilities. The provider ensured that support was available to help staff manage the pressures associated with urgent care, including during periods of increased patient demand. For example, we saw that the medical director and head of service providing support to the teams during busy periods including one to one support to staff.

Managers monitored staff workload and the service made reasonable efforts to manage staffing challenges. Staff told us that although the department could be busy and they sometimes had to work under a lot of pressure, teamwork and clear communication helped them to manage demand and maintain safety.

Staff wellbeing was promoted through access to support mechanisms, including opportunities for debriefing following challenging situations. This helped staff to reflect, learn and maintain their emotional wellbeing.

Staff reported that because of the high number of patients who were often wrongly streamed from ED, this has resulted in an increase in workload and stress.