EMC 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. However, the provider has remained the same. Under the previous registration they were rated requires improvement on 13 March 2020. The provider has improved and has now 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. 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. Our clinical searches found the provider 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. We saw examples whereby referrals made to the Local Authority had resulted in support for people with disabilities adapt their homes.

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. However, we found some gaps in medicines monitoring which did not follow national guidance /evidence based practice. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided mostly in line with current guidance. Staff we spoke with demonstrated how they kept up to date with standards through notifications, individual and group learning. Staff training was up to date, and staff were able to demonstrate how they accessed training and completed it online.

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 practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. Staff told us that they were well supported and had access to a senior colleague or manager to discuss people’s concerns if the need arose. We saw examples of the Physician Associate appropriately escalating concerns to the lead GP and seeking 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 people’s health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, those 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 practice had use of a social prescriber where they signposted patients to. The practice also had literature in the waiting areas to inform people of local and national support. However, literature was not always available in different languages. The provider told us that due to the current construction work at some sites, they were in the process of updating all leaflets and literature.

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 practice met national targets for cervical screening and immunisations. The practice offered set appointments for immunisations and cervical screening but were also flexible to meet the needs of their population, they were able to do this through offering extended access 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. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation. All staff were chaperone trained and knew how to support clinicians with examinations requiring chaperones. People were aware of their right to have a chaperone present, and this was clearly explained to them.