Patients we spoke with, many of whom had used the service before, told us they always received a ‘good service’. Staff were said to be ‘good at explaining things’ and the receptionists were described as ‘excellent’. Patients felt listened to by staff and most said they would recommend the service to others. Several patients, however, were unhappy with the length of the wait to be seen, although they were kept updated in relation to delays and were seen within times displayed. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service being delivered to patients.

We visited the service twice to carry out this inspection. The manager was not present at our first visit so we returned to look at records of staff training, appraisal and clinical audits.

The majority of the patients we spoke with were positive about the service. One patient said, “it has been a pretty good experience,” and a second patient said, “staff are good, helpful and respectful.” A number of patients had used the service before and reported positive experiences. The staff were identified as being caring and patient. Where patients reported concerns it was with waiting times. However, we did not meet anyone who reported waiting longer than one hour.

Care records were kept on a dedicated computer system and there was a system which identified any high priority patients who needed to be seen urgently, for example because of chest pains. There were a range of clinical audits which assessed the quality of staff’s work and assessed specific areas such as how staff had responded to chest pains, how they prescribed medicines and how effective the service was at identifying fractures.

The premises, including the treatment rooms, were clean. None of the patients we spoke with had concerns about cleanliness. We saw that there were protective gloves and clothing available, suitable arrangements for disposal of clinical waste and that the infection control arrangements had been audited.

The staff team worked together effectively and staff reported that they felt supported. Staff had received annual appraisals and regular supervision. A range of relevant training had been provided. There were a variety of systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service including regular clinical audits and ongoing surveys of patients.