Adelaide 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 that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC at the current location. This key question has been rated as requires improvement.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice usually made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. However, our clinical searches identified some areas where the monitoring of service users’ conditions was not up to date (for example, some patients with hypothyroidism), or it was not apparent their condition had been monitored elsewhere. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey were slightly below the national and local average. For example, 87% felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them, compared to 92% nationally and 92% locally, and 83% felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and 91% locally.

The practice usually planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Although meetings took place, minutes for the majority were not held.

We received conflicting information about clinical supervision for staff. One GP partner told us it took place but was not documented, and another told us there was no clinical supervision, and no dip sampling of the work of employed clinicians. This meant that leaders did not have assurance all clinicians were providing care and treatment in line with guidance.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey were slightly below the national and local average. For example, 87% of respondents stated that during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to, compared to 93% nationally and locally.

Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was usually provided in line with current guidance.

The practice did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Where an urgent referral was made for a patient, there was no monitoring process to ensure the referral had been actioned and the patient had attended their appointment.

Senior leaders acknowledged that teams were disjointed, and some teams were unable to formally meet as often as they would like to. They said more support for some teams and team leaders was needed. There had been a high staff turnover which had affected how the practice worked.

The practice did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The practice had been provided with a supply of blood pressure monitors to loan to patients as a way of managing hypertension. Although there was no protocol in place, some staff members asked patients for a deposit for the monitor, while others did not agree with this and would not request any money. We heard examples of patients experiencing either financial or health issues due to the requests for a deposit being made. There was no accurate or effective record of payments being made for deposits.

The practice had a carer's register. They did not have a carer's champion but were thinking of putting one in place.

The practice told us patients were encouraged to attend cancer screening appointments and take up vaccinations offered as part of national programmes. However, the most recently published cervical screening data showed the practice was below target. The percentage of persons eligible for cervical cancer screening who were screened adequately within 3.5 years for persons aged 25 to 49 was 54% (expected rate 80%), and within 5.5 years for persons aged 50 to 64 was 59% (expected rate 80%). They were also below target for childhood vaccinations.

We checked the practice’s in-box for pathology results. On 30 July 2025 107 of the 201 results had not been viewed, the oldest of these dating back to 23 May 2025.

The practice had systems to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions, but we did identify some patients at risk of diabetes who were not appropriately coded. The practice usually monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it. They usually ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The practice 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 recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation, although we found some discrepancies in the information held.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey were slightly below the national and local average. The National GP Patient Survey results indicated showed that 83% of respondents had stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared to 91% nationally 92% locally.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded.