Resilience Medicine Clinic Ltd

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 found the service was providing effective services because the service had systems and processes to keep clinicians up to date with current evidence-based practice and ensured all staff were aware of the services’ protocols and procedures. The service had a programme of quality improvement activity and routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of care provided. Staff worked together and worked with other organisations to deliver ongoing care and treatment to patients. The service provided a holistic approach to care and treatment and therefore supported patients to live healthier lives. The service obtained consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and their own policies.

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 service collated patient feedback to review the quality of care provided. Feedback showed the patients felt involved in the assessment of their needs and were confident their needs were appropriately assessed and fully understood. Patients were provided with information about possible treatments prior to their initial consultation. This enabled them to be informed when making decisions about care during consultations, which they were always invited to be involved in.

Leaders at the service told us patients’ needs were fully assessed before an initial consultation at the clinic. The service obtained a full medical history from the patients GP prior to a patient’s consultation.

Clinicians had access to detailed intake forms for newly referred patients. This enabled them to check if patients were eligible for the service prior to the initial appointment.

The service requested feedback from patients to review the quality of care provided. Although the service did not question patients directly about evidence-based care and treatment, the feedback collected showed the majority of patients were satisfied with the service and had no concerns in relation to the evidence-based care and treatment.

Leaders at the service were able to describe the risks involved when prescribing medicines that were dependence forming. For example, they monitored patients who were prescribed CBPMs for signs of psychological dependence. Leaders at the service also informed us, where possible, they assessed needs and delivered care in line with relevant and current evidence-based guidance and standards such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) best practice guidelines.

We reviewed 9 patient records and were satisfied the service was using evidence-based guidelines to treat and care for patients. Prescriptions for CBPMs were initiated by a specialist doctor where an unmet clinical need was identified, in line with current legislation.

The service requested feedback from patients to review the quality of care provided. Although the service did not question patients directly about how they felt staff and services work together, the feedback collected showed the majority of patients were satisfied with the service and had no concerns in relation to services working together.

Leaders worked with statutory and regulatory bodies to ensure they were adhering to good practice principles in relation to cannabis based medicinal products (CPBMs). Staff told us how they were able to refer patients back to their own GPs if any clinical issues arose. Clinicians wrote to GPs to communicate the treatments being provided, and where relevant prompt them to conduct monitoring.

Partners did not provide feedback about safe systems, pathways and transitions as part of this assessment.

We reviewed nine patient records and saw that they included details of medical history and details of communication with a patient’s GP. However, we saw that the clinic policy of information sharing with patients’ own GP was not being followed consistently by all staff, although we did not see any patients being placed at increased risk because of this. The service routinely held multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss cases, audits and any relevant information.

The service collected feedback from patients through an in-house survey. Feedback showed that patients felt supported to live healthier lives. Patients highlighted the services’ ‘holistic approach’ in dealing with chronic illnesses and complex conditions.

Leaders at the service told us they aimed to care for and treat patients through a combination of pharmaceutical medication, nutritional medicine and other treatment approaches. This enabled the service to address multiple symptoms rather than treating each symptom in isolation.

From our review of patient records, we found clinicians encouraged and supported patients to make healthier choices and helped to promote their health and wellbeing. The service focused on identifying risks to people’s health and wellbeing and supported patients to prevent deterioration.

The service collected feedback from patients through an in-house survey. Feedback showed that people who used the service were consistently experiencing positive outcomes and met their clinical expectations.

Leaders at the service told us they carried out monthly audits in which they reviewed clinical notes. Staff described the process for enabling complex prescribing decision to be reviewed by peers.

Leaders at the service carried out monthly audits in which they reviewed clinical notes of staff. This included ensuring there is a clear diagnosis, recommendations and treatment plans, and follow up instructions. The monthly audits included outcomes to confirm if improvement or any changes are required. The service also performed audits to check if letters to GPs that included patient outcomes were sent to the patients GP.

The service requested feedback from patients to review the quality of care provided. Although the service did not question patients directly about consent, the feedback collected showed the majority of patients were satisfied with the service and had no concerns regarding consent.

Leaders at the service told us about the various consent forms and procedures they have for specific procedures and treatment, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. If a patient did not consent to information being shared with other healthcare providers, they were advised they would not be able to access certain medicines.

The service had an updated consent policy which highlighted the importance of recording a patients consent. . This included explaining the details, risks and benefits of a proposed treatment, how a patient’s consent will be recorded and when healthcare professionals can access a patient’s medical record. When reviewing patient records, we saw that consent to medical treatment was always recorded and that without consent, patients would not be able to access certain medicines.