Horizon Health Centre Also known as (within) For All Healthy Living 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 quality statements in the effective key question. Our rating for this key question is now good. Staff included people in the assessment of their needs, and support was provided where needed to maximise their involvement. The national GP Patient Survey results indicated people felt their needs were met and they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. People’s care was regularly reviewed in line with guidance, and staff worked with other services to achieve the best outcomes to people.

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 had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to and felt they had all the information they needed. People felt their needs were met. However, feedback we received indicated access was challenging and people could not always get an appointment to get their needs assessed.

Staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Digital flags on care records highlighted to staff any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the additional support some people may need when attending their appointment such as requiring a translator.

Care and treatment was regularly reviewed and updated. There were appropriate referral pathways to make sure that people’s needs were addressed. People presenting with symptoms which could indicate serious illness were followed up in a timely and appropriate way. People with long-term conditions were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met in line with guidance. Our clinical searches identified 169 people diagnosed with hypothyroidism (a condition where the thyroid does not produce enough hormones). We identified 1 person that had not the appropriate monitoring in the last 18 months and reviewed their patient record. We saw evidence the service had attempted to contact the individual to invite them to book an appointment for monitoring. We reviewed the appointment diary and saw appointments were available to book the same day for urgent appointments and in the following few days for non-urgent appointments.

We received no specific feedback in this area.

Clinicians kept up-to-date with current evidence-based service and gave examples of how they are updated. Staff who were responsible for reviews of people with long-term conditions had received specific training. Clinical staff attended a monthly training session delivered to all locations by the provider and found this useful learning to support the care and treatment they delivered.

There were systems and processes to keep clinicians up-to-date with current evidence-based practice. Care and treatment was delivered in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance supported by clear pathways and tools. Our clinical searches identified 1 person who had a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. We reviewed their patient record and found they had been monitored appropriately.

We received no specific feedback in this area.

Staff told us they liked the team-working environment and enjoyed their jobs. They were aware of the value of working across services and sharing knowledge and experiences to get the best outcomes for people. Leaders welcomed partnership working and had met regularly with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) to make improvements following their last CQC inspection.

Feedback from partners indicated the service participated in multi-agency meetings to support vulnerable members of the community. Partners told us staff at the service are proactive in these meetings to ensure the best outcomes for people .

Regular meetings were held between the service and other health and social care services to ensure continuity of care. Care was delivered and reviewed in a coordinated way when different teams, services or organisations were involved. Social prescribers (a healthcare professional who connects people with non-clinical services in their community to help improve health and wellbeing) referred people to services in their local community.

We received no specific feedback in this area.

Staff supported people to be involved in monitoring and managing their own health. Staff told us they discussed changes to care or treatment with people and their carers. Staff discussed people between teams within the service, multidisciplinary meetings, and daily huddles to ensure care was delivered appropriately .

There was a process to identify people who may need extra support from local community services and appropriate referrals were made. This included people in the last 12 months of their lives, people at risk of developing a long-term condition and carers. The service website contained information and links to other sources of information to support people to make healthier choices.

People had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff carried out reviews or monitoring at appropriate intervals for people to ensure their health outcomes were positive. Staff identified opportunities to refer people to social prescribers (a healthcare professional who connects people with non-clinical services in their community to help improve health and wellbeing) to improve their quality of life. People with diabetes were regularly monitored and referred to appropriate services when necessary.

There was an effective system in place to review certain health conditions such as hypothyroidism (a condition where the thyroid does not produce enough hormones) and diabetes. Information on routine children’s immunisations was available on the service website. However, the service did not have an effective process to follow up people who did not take up the invite for cervical screening or childhood immunisation.

People with long-term conditions had an annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met. However, the process to increase the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening was not effective. For example, only 69% of people eligible had cervical screening within a set timeframe and the national expectation was 80%. However, the service was looking at options to address this such as an open day at the weekend for people to attend to ask questions and have the procedure if wanted.

We received no specific feedback in this area.

They were able to explain how they spoke to people and gain consent. Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making. Staff had completed Mental Capacity Act training.

Policies, protocols, and guidance were in place to support people to consent to care and treatment. Clinicians supported people to make decisions. Where appropriate, they assessed and recorded a person’s mental capacity to make a decision within the patient record.