Dr Skinner - Milson Road Health 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. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 67 (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. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The service had systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. However, the remote clinical searches carried out as part of the assessment identified some issues with missed diagnosis of diabetes. The clinical searches identified 9 people with a potential missed diagnosis of diabetes. We reviewed 5 of these and found 3 people who were appropriate for the diabetes register. The clinical searches also identified 18 people at high risk of developing diabetes. We reviewed 5 of these and found 3 people had had their results misinterpreted. Following the assessment, the service informed us that the concerns had been followed up and the risks mitigated.

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 service 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 focussed 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 stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

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.

Childhood immunisations were carried out in line with the national childhood vaccination programme. However, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) published data, the practice childhood immunisation uptake rates were below the World Health Organisation (WHO) target of 95% for 4 of 5 immunisation indicators measured in 2024/25, which were recorded at 77.8%, 79.1%, 97.4%, 81.4% and 83.7% respectively.

Similarly, according to the NHS England published data (30 June 2024), the practice population uptake rates for cervical cancer screening programme were below the England average. They achieved 60.7% cervical cancer screening rates for women aged 25-49 years and 65.9% screening rates for women aged 50-64 years old.

The service was aware of underperformance in these areas and were looking into ways to improve at both practice and PCN level.

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.

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.