Meadowview 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 staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

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 and those with caring responsibilities. Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice supported patients to live healthier lives through proactive and personalised approaches, including access to a community link worker and social prescribing. Patients were signposted to wellbeing services and offered additional support such as those with social or financial needs.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

The service met national targets for the uptake of childhood immunisations. The service performed slightly below target in relation to cervical cancer screening programmes, but the practice was attempting to increase uptake. A designated member of staff was responsible for recalling patients and the nurse would follow up with non-attenders. Cervical screening clinics were also being offered at the weekend through the Primary Care Network (PCN).

Recall systems were in place to ensure patients attended for screening and health checks. For example, patients who did not attend screening appointments were followed up with messages and their records were coded, while the nurse maintained registers of non-attenders for review.

The practice undertook a quality improvement project to increase engagement and improve the quality of annual health checks for patients with severe mental illness (SMI). The proportion of patients receiving a complete SMI health check, including all six care processes, increased from 74.6% in March 2025 to 76.8% in March 2026

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.