Sinnott 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

Care and treatment had mostly been delivered in line with the legislation and evidence-based guidelines in place at the time. However, there had been areas where improvements were required. The service had undertaken quality improvement activity and had reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.

This is the first assessment for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as 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 had mechanisms to identify and prioritise care for its most vulnerable individuals. For example, patients with a learning disability were offered an annual health check, and reasonable adjustments were considered to support attendance. A register was maintained for patients with caring responsibilities, and the service worked closely with an on-site social prescriber to help them access community-based support. The service ensured care and treatment were effective by regularly reviewing people’s health, wellbeing, and communication preferences.The national GP patient survey conducted between December 2024 and April 2025 received 125 responses. Of these, 79% of patients reported being involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was below the local and national average. Reception staff were familiar with the local community and used digital flags in the care record system to highlight specific requirements, such as the need for longer appointments or interpreter support. The provider had systems to identify previously undiagnosed conditions, and staff referred individuals with social challenges, such as isolation or housing issues, to a social prescriber.

The national GP Patient Survey conducted between December 2024 and April 2025 received 125 responses. While 81% of patients reported confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to, and 84% felt their needs were being met, this was below national averages and indicated room for improvement in patient experience.A review of three patient records coded with Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) revealed inconsistencies in documentation and decision-making. One DNACPR form indicated the patient lacked capacity, while the corresponding care plan stated the patient had capacity, both completed on the same date. The provider explained this was due to updates made following further family contact on the same day, reflecting a change in assessed capacity. While this clarifies the clinical reasoning, it highlights a risk that the documentation was not contemporaneously clear, creating potential for misinterpretation. Although the provider investigated and corrected the issue, this raised concerns about the robustness of clinical governance and decision-making processes.There was evidence of quality improvement activity, including an antimicrobial audit. The first cycle identified significant over-prescribing of antibiotics beyond the recommended five-day duration. A second audit conducted 12 months later showed some improvement, though persistent issues remained. The provider implemented further improvement measures and plans to re-audit within 6 to12 months.

The service worked effectively across teams and services to support patients. Staff ensured that people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments when patients moved between services.

Staff had access to all necessary information to deliver safe care and treatment. Clear policies and procedures were in place and readily available. Systems for sharing information with staff and external agencies supported safe care delivery. Staff liaised regularly with community teams, including health visitors, and mental health practitioners. Referrals to specialist services were documented, contained the required information, and were monitored to prevent delays.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, promoting independence, choice, and control. Staff helped people live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce future care needs.Staff focused on identifying health risks, including for patients in the last 12 months of life, those at risk of developing long-term conditions, and those with caring responsibilities. The provider referred patients to services which supported national initiatives to improve population health, such as smoking cessation and tackling obesity. Additionally, the service had a learning disability (LD) champion and promoted Learning Disability Week. It collaborated with an external organisation to gather ideas on how to improve its website, making it more user-friendly and inclusive. The LD Champion facilitated and led training sessions for staff on a range of topics designed to broaden their understanding of learning disabilities.

Leaders used computer software to monitor weekly patient uptake for long-term condition reviews. Audits were conducted in areas identified for quality improvement.

The service used EMIS searches to support continuous monitoring and improvement. Weekly clinical meetings were held to review patient outcomes.

Clinical audits focused on prescribing safety and aimed at improving patient outcomes.

The service was situated in an area where vaccine hesitancy was notably high among some minority ethnic communities. Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, the service did not achieve the WHO national target of 95% for five key childhood immunisation indicators. Uptake ranged from a high of 88% to a low of 77%.

Similarly, the national target of 80% for cervical screening uptake (based on NHS Digital data dated 30 May 2023) was not met for either the 25 to 49 years cohort (68%) or people aged between 50 and 64 years old (69.1%).

In response, leadership acknowledged these shortfalls and implemented a targeted action plan. This included appointing a dedicated staff member to manage the recall system, which involved sending text messages containing information and a self-booking link to encourage participation, employing another nurse for two days of the week, and introducing a monthly cervical smear audit.

Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision-making. Consent was documented, and clinicians supported patients in making informed decisions. Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were carried out and recorded.