360 Care - Cromwell Primary Care 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 all 6 quality statements in Effective and rated it as good. The service provided a good service that enabled access to the local community within a defined timeframe to enable referral to ongoing treatment as required.

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.

People said that staff told them what was going to happen and what to expect. They had received information prior to the scan so knew what to expect and were encouraged to ask questions at any time.

We heard from staff how they supported a person who had complex needs, including hearing and sight loss, which was highlighted by the GP in the referral form. The service reached out to them to assess their needs and provided an interpreter for the person who communicated through touch to enable them to access the service.

We saw effective processes in place for timely referrals and the service was performing well ahead of their target of 6 weeks waiting time. People were usually seen within 10 days, and we saw some instances where people had called to rearrange an appointment and were seen the same day.

People told us that they had received good care, and that the clinician had given a detailed explanation about the procedure.

Staff followed British Medical Ultrasound Society guidelines, there was an audit programme in place and peer supervision where they had identified areas to improve reporting documentation.

The service had processes in place that followed national guidelines. The sonographers discussed cases in peer supervision for information sharing, learning advice and support.

People were complimentary about the team and how they worked together.

The team worked well together; they told us how they supported each other; the operational manager was flexible and would cover chaperoning where required.

Partners fedback that the team worked collaboratively and professionally at the quarterly monitoring meetings.

We heard how staff worked together as a team and observed this in the clinic.

The service had clear processes in places for referral from partners. The service provided a timely response to scan referrals with results being fedback to the referring GPs immediately following the procedure electronically.

People who used the service said they were pleased with how quickly they were seen and how quickly they received their results.

The operational manager told us that they checked the appointment system throughout the day, to ensure that appointments could be utilised to ensure people who used the service were seen in a short time frame. They had called someone that morning who was able to attend later that day who had been referred by their GP the same day.

The service performed the scans and guided injections, further advice and follow ups were provided by their GP.

People using the service were invited to give feedback, they reported they were seen sooner than they expected, and results were received promptly through the GP.

There was an audit programme in place, these included consent, record keeping and infection control. We saw in meeting minutes, that we reviewed that managers discussed the results at staff and director's meetings where appropriate action was taken as needed.

There was an audit programme in place. The sonographers were audited on consent, and their reporting quality, every quarter, scoring 100% in June 2024 for all 3 sonographers. The Equality Impact Assessment for the service had been undertaken, this outlined the process for those who could not access the service and where they could be referred to, for example people under 18 would access the local hospital service.

People were sent information prior to their appointment to enable them to make an informed decision. Feedback from people who used the service was positive and they said that staff explained what they should expect from the procedure including any associated risks.

Staff and leaders were able to describe the consent process.

The service had a clear process for informed consent. People received appropriate information prior to their appointment with the opportunity to ask follow up questions either ahead or at the appointment. The service had a consent audit in place which showed that documented consent had been completed in line with the policy guidance.