The Mayfair Medical Centre

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 inspection, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this inspection, the rating has changed to good, the practice put systems and processes in place to ensure patient treatment was regularly reviewed and updated. Our clinical searches found that the practice had process and systems which helped to improve monitoring of medicine reviews and long term conditions.

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 practice 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 practice was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. Leaders and staff told us the practice used codes and alerts on the patient’s record to highlight special needs and requirements. Staff checked people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The practice had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The practice 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. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance. Our clinical record searches found majority of the patients were receiving safe management and monitoring for medicines within the advised time frame for instance, the monitoring of patients on high risk medicines and those with long term conditions. The leaders informed us they put in place protocols and systems processes to effectively manage this. The practice held registers for patients and provided annual health checks for those with learning disabilities, carers, people with severe mental health conditions, palliative patients, and vulnerable patients.

The practice worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

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 and the community professionals used the same system. The processes in place enabled staff to liaise regularly with community teams such as community nurses, health visitors, and palliative care nurses. Staff told us regular multi-disciplinary team meetings were held with external agencies where vulnerable people, or those receiving end-of-life care were discussed and actions recorded.

The practice supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Healthy living information was available in the waiting room and on the practice website.

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. No concerns were raised by those using the service about supporting people to live healthier lives. We found processes were in place to support people to live healthier lives.

The practice 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.

The practice didn’t meet national targets for their childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening. For example 45.8% of children ages 5 had received 2 doses for Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a rate of 95%. Leaders were aware of this and had put action in place to encourage patient uptake and their internal data reflected this. There were regular searches and process to identify eligible patients, and patients were actively followed up by letters, phone calls and text messages. However, there was not yet sufficient comparable data to demonstrate these actions were improving the take up of immunisations. Leaders informed us that some of their patients opted for private healthcare in relation to immunisations and screening. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the practice experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff who carried out chaperone duties were trained for the role and had received appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Posters were displayed in the practice informing people this was available to them.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation. There were no concerns raised by those using the service about consent to care and treatment.