360 Care - Cromwell Primary Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed all 8 quality statements in Safe and rated it as good. The service had the right number of trained competent staff. Procedures were carried out according to national guidance. Risk assessments were undertaken of the environment and equipment was well maintained and serviced.

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 who used the service were invited to give feedback through an online questionnaire. We reviewed what people had submitted and we also spoke to people, we found feedback was very positive. There had been a complaint from a person and as a result, the service had developed an information leaflet to provide answers to frequently asked questions, such as whether scans could take place when they were having a period. This prevented some cancellations.

The management team told us there had been 3 complaints since November 2023, which the service had responded to and had developed new patient information to address one of the complaints.

The service proactively asked for feedback on experience from people. Staff had annual appraisals and had completed the relevant mandatory training.

People who used this service told us they were satisfied with how quickly they received their appointment. Results were received by the GP instantly through their shared online system and one person explained how quickly their results were reviewed and a further appointment offered for follow up treatment.

We heard from leaders that there were clear referral and triage processes for people who used the service. Staff and leaders could explain the referral pathway clearly. People who used the service were sent information and any preparation that was required prior to their procedure to enable them to make informed choices and consent.

The provider had worked closely with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) to fulfil its contractual requirements in terms of activity reporting, patient experience/feedback and delivery/assurance against quality outcomes. The service was commissioned through the ICB and there was positive feedback on the service they provided.

A clear inclusion and triage criteria was in place. People who used the service were seen within the service timeframe of 6 weeks and most often within 10 days. Reports were then sent through to the GP electronically on the same day.

There were posters in the clinic rooms that signposted people to safeguarding services. We also saw safeguarding information with contact numbers and referral details displayed for staff reference within office areas.

Staff and leaders were able to explain the safeguarding process to us, there were clear policies in place, and they had access to a Level 4 trained safeguarding GP within the service for advice and to raise concerns.

The service had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. There was access to a level 4 trained safeguarding GP where required. Staff were confident on how they would identify and report safeguarding incidents.

People who used the service received information prior to an appointment to understand the risks involved with guided steroid injections.

The management team described how they managed risk across the service through auditing and environmental risk assessments. We saw that mandatory training had been completed by all staff to reduce risk in areas such as infection control, fire safety and moving and handling.

The service had systems in place for patient feedback. The service had environmental risk assessment processes in place, and we saw these were up to date.

People who used the service said the parking at the clinic was easy and it was closer to home which made it more accessible for them.

The management team were able to describe risk assessments undertaken, these included moving of equipment and we saw that moving and handling training had been completed by all staff to mitigate harm to staff. The access policy allowed the team to triage all people, and those that did not meet the criteria could access scanning at the hospital.

The environment was visibly clean and tidy. Fire risk assessments and audits had been undertaken. Equipment was well maintained, and service history was up to date.

Annual risk assessments were undertaken for the building and the service, and no outstanding risks were identified. Resuscitation equipment was in an accessible area, and we saw that regular checks were carried out and documented. Electrical equipment had been tested to the required standard and records were maintained.

People who used the service said the staff were friendly and explained what was going to happen during the scan, there was always a chaperone available to be with them.

Staff said that there were enough staff in the clinic, and they always had a chaperone when needed. We reviewed staff files, and all the required checks were in place including disclosure and barring service checks. All staff had the relevant qualifications and training for their role. Staff had had an annual appraisal, and the sonographers participated in peer review of cases.

We observed a clinic during our on-site assessment and saw there were the appropriate number of staff in place. Staff said they were supported through induction and felt there were enough staff to provide a good service.

There were processes in place to ensure there were the correct staff on duty in the clinic. The service had appropriately trained staff, a sonographer for scans, a consultant radiologist for guided injection, supported by the clinic assistant who had completed chaperone training.

People we spoke with said they found all areas clean throughout the building and we found no concerns relating to infection control. We saw evidence of cleaning schedules in the clinic rooms which had been completed.

Leaders explained the infection control policy and how these were implemented in practice. We saw where standards had not been met these were escalated, there was an example where repairs had been requested where there had been some paint peeling in visitor toilets.

We observed staff using the correct infection control procedures, the environment was clean, and equipment cleaned before every use, we saw them disposing of personal protective equipment in the correct bins.

There was an infection control policy and environmental audits in place for the service which we reviewed during our assessment. Staff completed infection control training. There was a leaflet for people who had undergone a guided injection on what to be aware of following the procedure to help to quickly identify any symptoms of infection.

People who used the service were sent information prior to their procedure on the effects of any medication that may be used.

The operations manager provided a clear outline on the use of medication for the service and their secure storage.

We checked the medicines on site, and they were in date. All medicines were appropriate for the service and kept stored in a locked cupboard within a treatment room.

Medicines were managed by the consultant undertaking guided injections and checked on site by a pharmacist.