9 February 2023
During a routine inspection
We rated it as good because:
The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. Staff kept the equipment and premises visibly clean. The equipment and premises kept people safe. The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe. The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.
Staff gave patients enough food and drink to meet their needs. Staff were competent for their roles and worked well together to benefit patients. Patients could contact the service seven days a week for advice and support after their surgery. Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance and ensured that patients gave consent in a two-stage process with a cooling off period of at least 14 days between stages.
Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress. They understood patients' personal, cultural and religious needs.
Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients who accessed the service. People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care. It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received.
Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Leaders operated effective governance processes, throughout the service. Leaders identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact.
However:
The design of the environment did not always follow national guidelines.
Managers monitored the effectiveness of treatment and checked to make sure staff followed guidance but did not have a process to record this.
Patient records were not always comprehensive.
The service was not always inclusive and did not consider the needs of patients whose first language was not English.