The Hollies 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.

At our last assessment, we did not rate the key question of effective. At this assessment, we have rated the key question of effective as requires improvement.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs with them. Our clinical searches identified areas where the monitoring of service users’ conditions was not up to date, or it was not apparent their condition had been monitored elsewhere.

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

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation, but our clinical searches identified areas where up to date guidance had not been followed. We received feedback that changes to the practice were not always communicated to staff members. Appraisals for all staff, at the time of the assessment, were not completed. We saw evidence of management meetings taking place to discuss clinical concerns.

The service did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

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 supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

Our remote clinical searches highlighted the practice did not consistently monitor people’s care and treatment. The practice submitted two clinical audits, both of which had completed a single cycle. A second cycle for both audits had not been completed to demonstrate a sustained improvement but were due to be completed for the following year.

The practice had met national targets for childhood immunisations, but national data showed that the uptake of cervical screening was at 77.9 percent, below the 80 percent national target. The practice had lead roles for both childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening who worked collaboratively with the practice nurse to contact patients who had declined appointments.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. However, do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were not made in line with relevant legislation.