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

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people when making decisions regarding best interests when the person did not have the mental capacity to make their own decisions.

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. 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. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. For example, our clinical searches identified 29 people with a potential missed diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We viewed 5 of these records and found all 5 had been managed appropriately. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation, to a village agent (someone who connects people with non-clinical services in their community to help improve health and wellbeing).

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 to keep up-to-date with changes to care and treatment and share their learning with the staff 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. Staff provided positive feedback regarding their experience working at the service, highlighting the supportive environment. Partners told us staff were easily contactable and listened to their concerns and worked in partnership to support vulnerable members of the community.

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 people’s 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. The service website contained information and links to other sources of information to support people to make healthier choices and support their lifestyles. People were able to self-refer to village agents who could connect them with non-clinical services in their community to help improve 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 targets for childhood immunisations accordingly to the latest data available for the period April 2023 to March 2024. Verified data for cervical screening available at the time of this assessment was from June 2024 and showed the service was not meeting the national uptake target of 80%. Unverified data shared by the service showed they had superseded the 80% uptake of cervical screening as of July 2025. From the clinical notes we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance. People with long-term conditions were offered an effective annual review to check their health and medicines needs were being met in line with guidance. Our clinical searches identified 342 people diagnosed with hypothyroidism (a condition where the thyroid does not produce enough hormones). We viewed 5 of these patient records and found all had been monitored appropriately.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Policies, protocols, and guidance were followed to support people to consent to care and treatment. Clinical staff had completed Mental Capacity Act training. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. However, capacity and consent were not consistently clearly recorded in patient records. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were recorded on patient records using Treatment Escalation Plan templates provided by the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). We viewed a sample of these forms and found they were not always thoroughly filled in when completed in secondary care. The service took immediate action by initiating a review of patient records and outlined plans to evaluate the process for completing TEP forms, ensuring they included information around consent if required, particularly if completed by external services.