Lees Medical Practice

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 assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care and wellbeing. However, a significant number of people said they did not always understand the next steps that would be taken, relating to their contact with the practice on the same day of contact. People said there were delays in being recontacted by the service.

Records reviewed consistently indicated people’s health needs were explained and consent given for referrals, medicine reviews and health checks. People also provided positive feedback in this area and confirmed that they felt included in discussions and decisions about their care.

Systems were in place to ensure reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Digital flags were used 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 mostly used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing, however, this needs to be extended to all clinical areas.

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 prescribing service.

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. 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 practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other 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 focused 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 preventing diabetes, stopping smoking and the childhood immunisation programme.

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 clinical expectations, however, people’s personal expectations were not always successfully managed.

The practice met most national targets for screening and immunisations. The practice did especially well in meeting and surpassing world health organisation (WHO) child immunisation targets. 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. Leaders had reviewed and developed plans of action to improve outcomes in areas where the target was not met.

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.