Archived: The Solace SARC - Bicester

We carried out this announced inspection on 22 and 23 March 2021 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We planned the inspection to check whether the registered provider was meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was supported by a specialist professional advisor.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions form the framework for the areas we look at during the inspection.

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive to people’s needs?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

G4S Health Services (UK) has managed The Solace Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) since April 2019. There are currently 2 sites, Slough and Bicester. This report relates to our inspection of The Solace Bicester SARC.

The SARC covered the whole of the Thames Valley Region. From April 2019 the SARC received calls from 789 patients requiring assistance, including onward referrals, and carried out 554 forensic examinations.

The service is commissioned by NHS England.

Bicester SARC is based in the grounds of the Bicester police station in the old “police house”. There was a separate, lit, walkway from the main road to the front door so a patient could choose to park away from the SARC and walk in, or they could park free in the police car park.

The service operated 24 hours a day 365 days a year for police referrals. They provided a service for both children and adults. Self-referral patients could be booked out of hours to facilitate their examination, but consideration would be made to their mode of transport to and from the SARC with last appointments usually agreed by 8pm to maintain their safety. The service took referrals from police, self-referrals, social services and other health professionals.

The service was provided by G4S Health Services (Limited) and as a condition of registration, must have a person registered with the Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. Registered managers have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager at The Solace was the service manager.

In Bicester, there were always at least two members of staff on site during the hours of 9 to 5. Staff lived close by to attend the SARC between 5pm and 6am if needed to conduct a forensic examination. These staff are forensic medical examiners (FME), forensic nurse examiners (FNE), doctors, crisis workers and administrators.

Within G4S Health Services (Limited) there are three clinical leads who are members and registered with the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine.

During the inspection we spoke with seven staff and reviewed eight patient records. We looked at policies and procedures and other records about how the service is managed. Throughout this report we have used the term ‘patients’ to describe people who use the service to reflect our inspection of the clinical aspects of the SARC.

Our key findings were:

• The provider had systems to help them manage patient risk.
• The staff had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
• The service had thorough staff recruitment procedures and an effective buddy system to ensure staffing levels were maintained during recruitment.
• Staff knew how to deal with emergencies. Appropriate medicines and life-saving equipment were available.
• The clinical staff provided patients’ care and treatment in line with current guidelines.
• Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and took care to protect their privacy and personal information.
• The appointment/referral system met patients’ needs.
• The provider had effective leadership and culture of continuous improvement.
• The provider asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
• The staff had suitable information governance arrangements.
• The provider appeared clean and well maintained.
• The staff had infection control procedures which reflected published guidance.