Creech 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. We assessed all the quality statements in the safe key question. This key question has been rated as good.

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.

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. All 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 for people with complex needs. 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 service had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. For example, our clinical searches identified 4 people with a potentially missed diagnosis of diabetes. We reviewed all 4 records and found 3 people had been managed and coded appropriately. Following the onsite visit, the service took action to ensure the fourth person was coded appropriately.

Staff were able to refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to an external agency who could signpost them to services in the community. People could also self-refer to a health coach for support.

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. Staff were supported to attend training and share their learning with the team. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service 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 service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services.

The service was part of a larger organisation that provided services across Somerset. They engaged regularly with other services under the same provider to share learning, receive updates and gain peer support.

Staff were positive about the working environment, describing an open-door policy where leaders were always available to talk to, discuss complex care needs and seek clinical advice.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to peoples’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, people 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 website contained information and links to other sources of information to support people to make healthier choices and support their lifestyles.People could self-refer or be referred to external agencies, who linked them to local non-clinical services in the community designed to enhance their health and wellbeing.

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.

The service met national minimum targets for childhood immunisations according to the latest data available for the period April 2024 to March 2025.

Verified data for cervical screening available at the time of this assessment was from June 2024. This showed the service had achieved 78% uptake for eligible 25–49-year-olds, just under the national uptake target of 80%. The service had exceeded the 80% uptake target for eligible 50–64-year-olds. The service provided unverified data for April 2024 to March 2025 which showed 77% of the younger age group and 83% of the higher age group had taken up the invite for screening. During the onsite visit, there were no cervical screening appointments available to book and there was a short waiting list of 8 people. The was due to the only trained staff member leaving and there being a gap while another staff member was being upskilled. The service was actively recruiting and aimed to appoint a staff member who was already trained in this area. In addition, support from locum nurses was expected to help clear the waiting list and enable bookable appointments to resume.

Our review of clinical notes confirmed people who used the service achieved positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff followed policies and processes to support people to consent to care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were recorded in people’s records using Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) templates provided by the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). We reviewed a sample of these forms and found they had been completed appropriately containing information around consent.