Willington Surgery

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 looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs.

Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Doctors used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. Templates were less well used by the nursing team.

The provider had systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. However, our clinical searches identified a small number of people with a potentially missed diagnosis of chronic kidney disease.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Overall clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

Staff were positive about how the service worked well across teams and services to support people. Leaders had listened to feedback from staff and taken steps to ensure all teams within the service interacted with each other through social events and practice learning sessions. There was evidence of working with the wider health care teams though multi-disciplinary teams (MDT) meetings. People had access to services provided via the Primary Care Network (PCN), including physiotherapy, social prescribers and health and wellbeing coaches. Support and learning was shared across the PCN. The service had worked with their Patient Participation Group to make improvements to the service.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The service met national targets for screening and immunisations. National data showed all 5 indicators for childhood immunisations had achieved the 95% World Health Organisation based target for uptake and this had been consistent over time. Uptake of cervical screening was 82%, which was above the national target of 80% and this had been consistent over time.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. A consent policy was in place to ensure appropriate consent was obtained from people when receiving care and treatment.

A do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) policy was available for staff to refer to, which indicated copies of the completed form should be in the electronic record. We looked at the records for 5 people with decisions in place, and only 2 were available in the electronic records. We also identified one of forms lacked detail as to why the decision was on place. This meant a clear rational for a decision not to perform CPR was not available.