Cudmore House

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

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. There was a process to clinically review and triage patients and refer them to the appropriate service to meet their clinical needs. The service had a system which alerted staff to any specific safety or clinical needs of a person using the service. The service understood their patient population and tailored services in response to those needs. For example, the introduction of the right care car that addresses gaps in community frailty care and District Nursing by visiting patients with acute care needs in their home environment, reducing the need for hospital admission. The service took complaints and other patient feedback seriously and responded to them to improve the quality of care.

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.

We received no specific feedback in this area.

Staff treated people as individuals and with respect. They offered care and treatment with a person-centred approach and redirection to other services that best met the patients’ needs.

Some staff told us they completed specialist training and had additional responsibilities linked to their role. For example, the urgent care practitioner (nurse) had additional responsibility for carrying out clinical audits for nurses and paramedics. Staff and leaders at the service told us the service was committed to providing both care and redirection to other services that met people’s clinical needs.

Partners did not provide feedback about care provision, integration and continuity as part of this assessment.

The importance of flexibility, informed choice and continuity of care was reflected in the services provided. There were systems and processes to support patients with a multi-disciplinary approach. The service had a system which alerted staff to any specific safety or clinical needs. The service made reasonable adjustments when patients found it hard to access the service. During our assessment, we identified staff had not completed mandatory training to support autistic people and people with a learning disability. Following our assessment, the service was proactive in addressing this and providing assurances that staff were being assigned this training to complete.

People knew what the next step would be after contacting the service.

Staff told us they provided people with advice and information in a way that helped them to understand their health needs. Where people’s needs could not be met by the service, staff referred them to the appropriate service.

There was a system for staff to access interpretation services to support people who did not have English as a first language. However, the service website did not contain any information for patients about accessibility, for example, how to request large print or easy read documents or if there was a requirement for a British Sign Language interpreter. Leaders were aware of this, and a new Communications Manager had been appointed to improve the service website and make it more accessible for the patient population.

People told us healthcare professionals listened to them.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of the importance of listening to people during their appointment. They helped patients to be involved in decisions about care and treatment. We reviewed a sample of complaints received by the service, we saw they were responded to and acted upon in a timely way and in line with the providers complaint’s procedure. Complaints were reviewed regularly, and learning was shared amongst staff to drive continuous improvement.

Patient feedback was collated, reviewed, and acted on to improve service and culture. Information about how to complain was readily available via the service website. Complaints were listened to and responded to appropriately and acted upon to improve the quality of care.

The service undertook patient surveys to review the quality of care provided. Although the service did not question patients directly about equity in access, most patients were satisfied with the service.

Leaders explained how they understood the needs of the local population and had developed the service in response. Staff told us they provided opportunities and support for different groups of the patient population to overcome health inequalities. For example, there was a special allocations telephone line to support people who were experiencing mental health. There was also a mental health on-call system for staff to refer people that required further specialist support for their complex needs.

There were systems and processes for prioritising people presenting with the highest need, and staff had access to guidance to support decision making.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We received no specific feedback in this area.

Staff provided an immediate response to people’s urgent needs. Individual care records were managed in a way that kept people safe. The service had systems for sharing information with staff and other agencies to enable them to deliver safe care and treatment. Staff had experience and understanding of palliative care to enable them to support people compassionately.

The services clinical system stored special patient (flagging) notes shared by the patient’s own GP in case they needed to access care during the GP out of hours period. For example, Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) documentation. End of life care was delivered in a coordinated way which considered the needs of those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable.