Lymington Urgent Treatment Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed and inspected against one quality statement; Governance, management and sustainability. There were effective governance processes within the organisation. Structures, processes and systems of accountability were clearly set out, understood and effective. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflect best practice. A systematic approach was taken to work with other organisations to improve care outcomes for patients. The service had implemented a new model of care, which included an ‘initial assessment’ and ‘see and treat’ process with clear protocols, to improve the capacity and safety of the service. Patients were triaged and assessed within target timeframes which were audited and reviewed with the local commissioners, which illustrated consistent and efficient high performance service provision.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We collated 17 staff feedback forms as part of the assessment process. Staff told us that there were opportunities to develop their skills and learning through Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and 'lunch and learn' sessions, sharing clinical best practice and guidelines. Staff said there was support from leaders and good teamwork to resolve problems and maintain performance. Leaders at all levels were visible and approachable. They worked closely with staff and others to make sure they prioritised compassionate and inclusive leadership. Leaders and managers acted on behaviour and performance consistent with the vision and values. Staff told us that their feedback was sought and acted upon and resulted in service improvements. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. The service focused on the needs of patients. Openness, honesty and transparency were demonstrated when responding to patient feedback.

There were effective governance processes within the organisation. Structures, processes and systems of accountability are clearly set out, understood and effective. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. For example, we identified that when staffing rota’s were planned, only individuals that had completed their agreed training were permitted and able to work. Governance arrangements were proactively reviewed and reflected best practice. A systematic approach was taken to work with other organisations to improve care outcomes. There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation and the service acted promptly in response to incidents and complaints. The service ensured that key performance indicators for meeting patient waiting times were reviewed. Results showed these were consistently good and improvements were made to maintain performance. For example, we identified that at least 95% of all patients were seen within 15 minutes for an initial assessment during 2023. In addition, at least 95% of patients were also seen for treatment within 4 hours during 2023. Leaders had oversight of risks, performance and patient feedback, information was used to identify and deliver service improvements. We saw evidence of actions taken in relation to the risk register, which were reviewed during quality and governance meetings and where appropriate with external stakeholders.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.