Stratum Clinic

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 6 quality statements from this key question. There had been significant improvements in the quality of recording care planning and related information since the previous inspection. Patients’ needs were being assessed prior to care and treatment, national guidance was being followed, staff worked as a team to support patients and they were supported to live healthier lives. Patient outcomes were monitored to identify where they could improve and consent was sought in line with guidance. There were systems to share information with external providers and ensure coordination of care. Monitoring of care had improved since September 2023 but further improvements were required to clinical audit as it did not always reflect national guidance.

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.

Patients were able to access prompt information and advice about their health, care and treatment as well as aftercare support if needed.

Clinicians undertook thorough assessments of patients’ needs prior to developing treatment plans.

The clinical record system had improved significantly and now contained details of care planning and related information such as medical histories. Patients received appropriate diagnostic tests prior to receiving treatment plans. We saw care planning was in line with national guidance.

Patients were able to access prompt information and advice about their health, care and treatment as well as aftercare support if needed.

A review of clinical records reflected that patients received treatment in line with national clinical guidance.

Clinical records now reflected information that demonstrated care was being provided in line with evidence-based guidance. Patients received care, treatment and support that was in line with good practice standards.

Patients reported feeling supported by the service and staff. There was no negative feedback regarding communication with external services.

Patients received referrals into the service or they contacted the service directly for treatment. There were effective processes to diagnose, treat patients and provide aftercare. We saw evidence of multi-disciplinary team-working for individual patients including with external services.

We received no feedback from commissioners or other healthcare providers about how well the service worked with other organisations. There was evidence of multi-disciplinary team involvement in patients' care.

Staff referred to and communicated with external services and details of patient's consultations and prescribed medications were shared with patients’ registered GPs to ensure patients could be supported effectively when moving between services.

Patient feedback reflected that support and advice was available throughout their contact with the service including during their recovery period. However, we found feedback from two patients regarding a delayed follow up from the service and the service investigated and responded to this appropriately.

Patients were provided with post-treatment care advice and how to contact the provider if they became concerned after their treatment. Patients were provided with information on their independent skin care needs, including post-cancer treatments.

Patients were provided with aftercare information and follow up support if required, which could also be obtained from the website.

Patient feedback was mainly positive about their treatment and outcomes. The provider reviewed and took action where negative feedback was provided

The clinical lead informed us that there was insufficient clinical input regarding the design and undertaking of clinical audits. We found this had led to insufficient audit activity. However, there was significant improvement in the quality of clinical record keeping since September 2023 which identified to CQC that monitoring and improving outcomes was taking place.

At the last inspection, we found there were insufficient systems for the monitoring of the quality of care and patient outcomes. During this assessment, the provider could demonstrate they had implemented a system of clinical audits. However, some audits we reviewed were not sufficient in monitoring specific areas of risk related to the clinical procedures they were intended to audit.

Patient feedback collected by the service since November 2023 and from an online consumer review website was mostly positive and included comments that patients felt their care and treatment had been clearly explained to them and staff were able to answer any questions they had.

The medical director demonstrated through patient records that consent was sought and obtained before proceeding with care. The compliance lead showed us a copy of the provider’s consent policy, which included reference to legislation regarding people’s right to consent to decisions regarding their care.

The service had processes in place to obtain consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance and staff understood the requirements when seeking consent. All clinical staff had undertaken Mental Capacity Act training.