Lymington Urgent Treatment 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 and inspected against one quality statement; How staff, teams and services work together. All relevant staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering people’s care and treatment. Staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet the range and complexity of people’s needs. The continuing development of the staff’s skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as being integral to ensuring high-quality care. Staff were proactively supported and encouraged to acquire new skills, use their transferable skills, and share best practice. The service had been innovative by developing its own clinical development programme to provide accredited training to staff, to reflect the changing demands of the service. There were embedded competencies, supervisions and mentorship as part of staff support. There were well developed links with other service providers and organisations to support safe and effective care and treatment to improve patient outcomes. For example, the service worked with stakeholders to provide a seamless transition in care pathways through 111 and local GP providers. These links helped to resolve issues within the local area and promote cross-sector learning.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff and leaders’ feedback demonstrated that patients are receiving exceptional care. We were provided evidence of patient feedback themes and trends supporting an effective and systematic approach to care. For example, the service worked with local healthcare services who supported the patient pathways and the onward referrals. Ongoing relationship building and case study review of patient outcomes was used to drive learning and service delivery changes where required. We saw monthly governance reports that were sent to staff which highlighted end to end reviews of patient care at the service which included the review of national guidelines resulting in any changes to standard operating procedures. Staff and leaders told us that services are committed to working collaboratively and have found innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined-up care to people who use services. For example, the service used patient feedback to implement changes to their premises to improve access as well as utilising links within the Lymington New Forest Hospital so that patients could be seen who required further care outside the scope of the service such as radiological or pathology diagnosis more effectively than GP re-referral.

The service worked with the local commissioners to review key performance indicators and patient safety events to provide learning outcomes. The service is a member of a locality Urgent Treatment Centre subgroup which included representation from the local commissioners. This forum allowed for sharing of learning and good practice between centres with the purpose of maintaining a consistent standard of care across the regional Urgent Care Service. End to end review sessions were held where patient case studies were discussed to further embed learning and changes to service provision where required. For example, further external training courses were available to staff such as safeguarding level 4 and palliative care workshops. The local hospital charity, Lymington Friends supported the urgent treatment centre by funding specialist equipment and signage. Feedback was that the service leadership was proactive and had a 'can do' attitude.

All relevant staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering people’s care and treatment. Staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet the range and complexity of people’s needs. The continuing development of the staff’s skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as being integral to ensuring high-quality care for patients. For example, the provider demonstrated their core values of nurturing and developing people. Staff had opportunities to learn and develop clinical skills through practical conferences as well as through case study learning in ‘lunch and learn’ sessions. Staff were proactively supported and encouraged to acquire new skills, use their transferable skills, and share best practice. For example, mentors would review records and support clinicians with further competency checks after each individual clinician had prescribed the first 3 medicines under patient group and patient specific directions (PSDs). The service had been innovative by developing its own clinical development program with support from other health professionals. There were embedded competencies, supervisions and mentorship as part of staff support. Staff were consistent in supporting people to live healthier lives, including identifying those who need extra support, through a targeted and proactive approach to health promotion and prevention of ill-health, and they use every contact with people to do so. There was a holistic approach to planning people’s discharge, transfer or transition to other services, which was done at the earliest possible stage. The service worked with stakeholders to provide a seamless transition in care pathways through 111 and local GP providers that went above and beyond the national standards.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.