Cannock Road 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 Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 health assessments and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs.

Staff made use of digital flags to highlight any specific individual needs, such as waiting in a quieter area or the need for an interpreter.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of patients individual needs and how they were met, for example communications via phone call or letter rather than text message.

A clinical review was undertaken to assess how effectively the service monitored and supported people with long‑term medical conditions. Five records were examined for each of the following conditions: asthma, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and hypothyroidism. All randomly selected records demonstrated appropriate monitoring, with no clinical concerns identified. The evidence showed that people with long‑term conditions were reviewed and followed up in a timely and consistent manner.

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.

Staff told us they were given protected time to review guidance and best practice and the leaders encouraged discussions daily for shared understanding.

Staff had access to the information they needed for a consistent process of assessing, planning and delivering people’s care and support. The service made use of national templates based on latest guidance to ensure best practice was followed.

The service understood the importance of monitoring long term medical conditions and how preventative treatment supported the best possible outcome for patients.

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 and treatment, through detailed handbooks and leadership support. The practice worked with other services to ensure continuity of care, including where clinical tasks were delegated to other services. There were examples of work within the Primary Care Network (PCN), such as the Respiratory Hub offering appointments where a mix of specialist health care professionals were available in one place.

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

The service had completed a review and audit of breast screening attendance, actions were taken and they saw an increase from 6% to 29% of eligible patients booked or attending screening appointments when data was reviewed 2 months later.

The service actively took part in healthier life promotions, such as bowel cancer screening programmes as well as a leading role in a Saturday contraceptive clinic ran through the PCN to reduce the risks of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and lowering abortion rates.

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 service was aware of the patient demographic, personal choice and culture which impacted on meeting national targets for screening and immunisations. 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. We also saw evidence of actions taken to encourage patients to attend for screening and immunisation.

Data from the UK Health Security Agency states that the service had achieved the target of 95% of children aged 1 who had completed the primary course of vaccines. Data from NHS England showed 68% of eligible women in the age bracket 50 to 64 years old had an adequate screening test, the expected minimal target was 80%. The service was aware of the importance of encouraging attendance for screening and demonstrated the recall system, information shared and health promotions to improve up take.

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.

The National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was in line with the national (91%) and local (90%) averages.