Arrowe Park Urgent Treatment Centre

This assessment took place on 16, 17 and 30 September 2025. Arrowe Park Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as Arrowe Park Walk-in Centre, and is located within Arrowe Park Hospital, Arrowe Park Road, CH49 5PE. The service is operated by Wirral Community Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust, which also runs two other CQC-registered urgent treatment locations.

Arrowe Park UTC operates daily, including Bank Holidays, from 8am to 10pm. After 10pm, walk-ins are only accepted via referral from the adjacent Emergency Department (ED). The centre treats approximately 34,000 patients annually, supported by a nursing team with varied skill levels, including healthcare assistants. Between 8am and 6:30pm, GPs from One Wirral work on-site under a service level agreement.

The service aims to treat patients who do not need emergency care, reducing pressure on the emergency department (ED) and preventing hospital admissions. Patients can access the UTC via walk-in, NHS 111, primary or community referrals, the ED, or ambulance service.

We previously assessed aspects of this urgent treatment centre as part of a wider assessment of a range of services offered by the Trust in March 2018 when we rated the safe key question as requires improvement. This assessment was the first comprehensive assessment for Arrow Park Urgent Treatment Centre as a location registered with CQC.

At this inspection, we assessed all five key questions to establish if the services provided were safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We rated the safe key question as requires improvement, and the well-led key question as requires improvement. The effective, caring and responsive key questions were rated as good. The service is rated requires improvement overall.

At this assessment we found:

Leaders and staff prioritised safety and joint working. Incident reporting occurred at the service location level, with investigations and analysis undertaken at higher governance levels within the trust’s leadership. Some learning was shared, but the trust could not demonstrate a system to ensure that all staff across all sites received consistent information.

We saw that staff at the service location level prioritised safety, openness and joint working. We saw that safety events were reported to managers by staff and investigated. However, the trust could not demonstrate that safety events were always identified, and that lessons were consistently learned and embedded into good practice. Leaders could not demonstrate that investigations always identified shortfalls, prevented recurrence and maintained safety.

There was a process to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks, including risks to patient safety (such as staffing levels). However, the process was not effective, because although risks were identified, appropriate action was not always taken in a timely manner.

A triage system prioritised patients by clinical need and supported effective record management. The service had systems to manage infection prevention and control (IPC), safeguard patients, follow NICE guidelines, handle safety alerts, manage emergency medicines, and maintain secure prescription and medicines processes.

Most patients accessed care easily, were seen promptly, and received appropriate treatment. However, key performance indicators were lower than the required average for triage of patients within 15 minutes of arrival. Patient care records were mostly well managed and reflected best practice.

Staff treated patients with kindness and respect, protecting their privacy. Accessible information supported patients with additional or communication needs. Despite staffing challenges, staff remained dedicated and empathetic in their care.

Health and safety, estate and facilities governance were in place, with internal fire, IPC, and health and safety assessments completed. Recruitment processes met the required standards. However, despite ongoing recruitment efforts, staffing levels remained below the required establishment and not all staff had completed required training.

The provider used data to monitor and improve performance and engaged in quality improvement at trust level. Staff reported strong teamwork and a shared commitment to delivering compassionate, high-quality care.

Leaders understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment, and support. They presented with the skills, knowledge, and experience to lead effectively. However, this was not always evident in practice. Leaders reported listening to staff and patient feedback and analysing its impact. However, long-standing risks from low staffing levels persisted.