Summary of report contentHealthwatch Wolverhampton wanted to evaluate the new urgent care centre (UCC) which came into being on 1st April 2016.They approached the Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) with a research proposal to review the patient experience of users of the UCC. The research method chosen was a face to-face survey to focus on the quality of service delivery and meeting the needs of patients. The results would provide evidence for one of the Key Performance Indicators in the UCC service specification, requiring the provider to conduct patient surveys. The main findings were: • 63% were referred to the UCC by another service and over half of these were from the NHS 111 service. • 78% provided GP-related reasons for attending the UCC, including those who couldn’t get an appointment or whose GPs were closed. • 85% said that it was easy or very easy to find the UCC. Signposting was the most common recommendation for improvement. • 88-93% rated the friendliness, helpfulness and understanding of staff as good or very good. However, 34% rated waiting time as poor or very poor. • 90-93% rated lighting, cleanliness and availability of seating as good or very good. • 73% were waiting two hours or less to be seen. • 56% said that the clinician gave their name and 41% explained their job role. • 83-95% agreed or strongly agreed that, during their consultation, they had time to explain their problem, had a clear explanation of their diagnosis and were told what would happen next. However, 68-71% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were given printed information about their diagnosis and treatment. • 79% said that information was not available or they were unsure about how they could make a comment, compliment or complaint.. • 81% were satisfied or very satisfied overall with the service at UCC. 12 recommendations were made. It does not include a response from the service provider.
Would you like to look at:
An evaluation of the urgent care centre at New Cross Hospital
Date of publication
Monday, 1 May, 2017
Date evidence capture began
Monday, 6 February, 2017
Date evidence capture finished
Friday, 10 February, 2017
Type of report
Building and facilities
Car parking access
Communication between staff and patients
Food and nutrition
Health and safety
Quality of appointment
Quality of care
Quality of staffing
Quality of treatment
Service delivery organisation and staffing
Waiting time to be seen once arrived at appointment
Healthwatch reference number
Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation?
If this work has been done in partnership, who is the partner?
Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Group
Primary research method used
How was the information collected?
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced?
Urgent and emergency care services
Urgent care services
Number of people who shared their views
Does the information include public's views?
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views?
Does the information include staff's views?
Does the information include other people's views?
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views?
Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report?
Does the information contain a response from a provider?
Is there evidence of impact in the report?
Is there evidence of impact external to the report?