Doncaster Same Day Health 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 6 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. We found staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Providers are required to report performance outcomes to the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). This includes audits, whether face to face assessments happened within the required timescales, seeking patient feedback and actions taken to improve quality. We reviewed the data for the same day health centre service between April 2022 to March 2023 and found the following: Face-to-face consultations at the service should be started within the following timescales, after the patient has been assessed by the call handling staff: • Emergency: Within 1 hour. • Urgent: Within 2 hours. • Less urgent: Within 24 hours. • The provider saw 29.2% of all emergency consultations within one hour in 2022/23 and 32.6% in 2021/22. The service standard was 95%. The number of patients booked into emergency appointments was small, meaning that the percentage of the target achieved is skewed by issues outside the provider’s control and by recording errors. • The provider saw 50.5% of all urgent consultations within two hours in 2022/23 and 54.1% in 2021/22. The service standard was 95%. • The provider saw 76.7% of all less urgent consultations within four hours in 2022/23 and 79.5% in 2021/22. • 98% of the documented consultations at the centre were shared with the patients own GP before 8am the following morning for the year 2022/23. The service standard was 95%.

Staff carrying out wound care reviews had received appropriate training for the role. The current provider manager was the strategic lead at the service, they discussed with us at interview how patients’ needs were assessed and delivered in line with current legislation. We saw several examples of the minutes of monthly clinical meetings.

Due to the nature of the provider, we did not conduct clinical searches as the service did not have a defined regular patient list. We observed the referral process and examples we looked at identified these to be actioned in a timely manner.

We did not receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about assessing and reviewing their health care needs.

The provider told us that they had completed a number of audits and they continue this on a monthly basis. Due to the nature of the service it was not possible to complete healthcare condition audits due to their patient list type. We saw records that the provider was maintaining regular monthly checks on antibiotic prescribing. The data we looked at showed for example, the level of penicillin prescribing had reduced from 7.19% to 4.29% in the period January to May 2024.

We observed that the service delivered evidence-based care though some recording of wound management reviews taking place on a monthly basis. For example, when patients presented with a leg ulcer wound an assessment of the status and additional information was recorded if an escalation or further referral was needed following treatment.

We did not receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about assessing and reviewing their health care needs. Patients had been referred to the service by secondary care when required.

Staff attended regular multi-disciplinary team meetings to discuss patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, for example patients receiving end of life care.

The provider worked collaboratively with the NHS 111 providers in their area by collaboratively reviewing referrals to the service. The feedback we received from partners was positive. For example Healthwatch (HW) had recently visited the service and had spoken to an arrangement of patients on their experience of the service. We looked at a report that was provided by HW and noted positive responses and experiences from patients visiting the service.

The provider had a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) policy in place and safe processes for information sharing with associated partners.

We did not receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about assessing and reviewing their health care needs.

The provider worked collaboratively with other services. Patients who could be more appropriately seen by their registered GP or an emergency department were referred on. If patients needed specialist care, both services could refer to specialties within the hospital or community. Staff also described a positive relationship with the mental health team if they needed support during the out-of-hours period.

We did not receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about assessing and reviewing their health care needs.

Staff carrying out long-term condition reviews had received appropriate training for the role.

The provider monitored and improved outcomes for patients by carrying out audits on antibiotic prescribing and regular assessments on wound management.

We did not receive any feedback from members of the public regarding this service. The evidence we reviewed did not show any concerns about assessing and reviewing their health care needs.

Staff sought patients’ consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. Patients were offered a chaperone when carrying out examinations, we saw posters displayed in the service informing patients of this. Staff who carried out chaperone duties were trained for the role and had received a disclosure and barring (DBS) check.