Urgent Care Service Review, Solihull

Download (PDF 1.46MB)

Summary of report content

Findings from the respondents Arrival at the service: • 56.45% self referred to Urgent Care. • Majority had used the service previously. • 64.71% used Urgent Care Services due to lack of GP appointments. • Confused on lack of an A&E Department at Solihull Hospital. Knowledge of service: • 47.27% reported they did not know what services they could access through Urgent Primary Care, Acute Medical Unit and Minor Injuries Unit • Majority had used another service prior to attending Urgent Primary Care, with most commonly citing their GP (38.10%). Accessibility of service: • Nearly 70% found it easy to find the services. • 55.26% in Urgent Primary Care reported they did not know which reception desk to report to. • Clarity over signage for both booked and walk in primary care. • A case study around confusion about the language used for “booked in”. • Signage issues, e.g. A&E department, ‘Minor Injuries’ and ‘Urgent Primary Care’ with no ‘Urgent Care’ centre/services being referred to. Experience of the service: Service reception • Good experience of the service reception in terms of privacy, friendliness, helpfulness and understanding of staff. • 46.15% reported information was available on how to make a comment, compliment or complaint. Surroundings in the service: The surroundings were very good in terms of cleanliness, lighting, decoration, room temperature, comfort and availability of seating and condition of toilets. Facilities in the service: • Information posters, information leaflets and signage good. • Access to wifi not promoted. Experiences with staff: • 60.61% reported a wait of less than an hour for triage. • Average observed waiting time to be seen by a Consultant or treatment varied between 1-3 hours, depending on the time of day. • 66.67% in Minor Injuries Unit felt that names weren’t given, while 55.56% in Urgent Primary care did give them their name. • 11.11% in Minor Injuries Unit and 55.56% in Urgent Primary Care felt that the person who treated them did explain their job role/title. • 29.63% were given time to explain their problem to a clinical member of staff (triage/nurse). • Majority agreed that they were treated with dignity and respect and were treated well overall. Satisfaction with service: Majority of respondents extremely satisfied (19.23%) or somewhat satisfied (57.69%) with the service that day. Recommendations • Clarity over the reception area and who it is for (e.g., single point of access) • Clarity over the North entrance for booked patients only • Signage and visibility to enhance patient journey • Clarify language used particularly with ‘booked’. • Clear information to the General Public with regards to the changes in Solihull and how to access them • Provide wifi access in Urgent Primary Care as there is no reception in the area.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Urgent Care Service Review, Solihull
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Solihull
Date of publication 
Saturday, 11 November, 2017
Date evidence capture began 
Sunday, 11 November, 2012
Date evidence capture finished 
Saturday, 11 November, 2017
Type of report 
Service evaluation
Key themes 
Access
Booking appointments
Building and facilities
Communication between staff and patients
Consent to care and treatment
Health and safety
Health protection
Other
Quality of staffing
Quality of treatment
Service delivery organisation and staffing
Staff attitudes
Waiting time to be seen once arrived at appointment
Waiting times and lists for treatment
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-6616

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
No
What type of organisation requested the work 
Other local body
Primary research method used 
Observation
Survey
User stories
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
N/A

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
Out of hours
NHS 111
Urgent care services
Secondary care services 
Acute services with overnight beds
Minor injuries unit
Accident & emergency
Community services 
Other
Urgent and emergency care services 
Accident & emergency
NHS 111
Urgent care services

Details about conditions and diseases

Types of long term conditions 
Other
What type of pregnancy or maternity themes are included in the report 
Pregnant

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
71
Age group 
All
Gender 
All
Ethnicity 
Mixed / multiple ethnic groups
Does the information include public's views? 
Yes
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Not known
Does the information include staff's views? 
No
Does the information include other people's views? 
Yes
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Positive

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Not known
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Not known

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
 
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
 
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.