Gray’s Inn Medical Group Vauxhall

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 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. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber who attended the service once a week.

Posters displayed in the waiting area encouraged patients to let the service know if they were carers. 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. The provider had effective systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Overall, 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. We found the management of people living with asthma required improvements 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. Staff told us advice was promptly available through Teams channels focussing on specific areas, and they had protected time to complete training. Training and updates were also provided during regular team meetings.

However, we reviewed the records of 301 patients on the asthma register and found that not all had been reviewed appropriately. Out of the 301 patients on the asthma register, 8 had received two or more courses of steroids in the preceding 12 months. Steroids are prescribed to patients with asthma after they have experienced an exacerbation to decrease airway inflammation. We reviewed the records for 5 of these patients and found that 4 had not been reviewed within a week of being prescribed steroids, placing them at increased risk of further exacerbation or deterioration. One of these patients was also overdue their annual asthma review. The service confirmed that immediate action would be taken to follow up with these 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, 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 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.

The practice did not meet national targets for screening and immunisations. However, the practice was aware of this and had taken action to improve outcomes.

Performance for childhood immunisations was below 80% for all 4 indicators (National target 90%). Performance for cervical cancer screening was also below national targets with 60% of eligible patients undergoing screening (National target 80%).

The service maintained a list of patients who were overdue vaccinations or screening, and reminders were sent out on a weekly basis. Patients or their parents/guardians who were reluctant to take up vaccinations or screening were offered appointments with a nurse to discuss any concerns they may have.

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 and had received training on the Mental Capacity Act. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.