Church Crescent 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 where appropriate to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

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 and wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The lead doctor used national guidance and templates to support the review of people’s wider health and wellbeing prior to treatment.

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.

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.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. Clinical records we saw demonstrated care was provided in line with current guidance.

The service worked to support patients and shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they were referred to different services.

The service understood when it may be necessary to work with other services to ensure continuity of care and had arrangements for this.

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. Where appropriate, the service provided patients with advice to support self-care. The service provided advice to patients on health prevention, including smoking cessation advice and weight management. The service referred patients where appropriate to other services, for example, the service referred patients for 24-hour ECG monitoring and blood pressure monitoring. The service signposted patients to organisations and charities for ongoing support.

The service 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 carried out regular quality monitoring activities, including audits. For example, the service carried out record keeping audits, prescribing audit (focusing on choice of antibiotic and whether this was prescribed in accordance with national guidelines), hand hygiene audits, infection prevention and control (IPC) audits, handling of blood results audits, capacity demand audits and patient satisfaction audits. The service provided an example where it had made amendments to the service following review of capacity demand. It was noted that there was an increased demand for face to face appointments after 5pm on weekdays and the service amended its appointments system to accommodate this where appropriate. The service conducted red flag audits (focusing on urgent symptoms and 2 week wait referrals) and held a register of urgent potential cancer symptoms. The lead doctor maintained oversight of patients added to this spreadsheet to ensure that patients had received the appropriate ongoing care. From the clinical records we reviewed, we found that people who used the service experienced positive outcomes as set out in legislation, standards, and evidence-based clinical guidance.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The lead doctor understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded in clinical records we reviewed.

Patients were asked for consent to share details of their consultation with their registered GP when they used the service. The service told us that information was shared with patients’ NHS GPs if consent was provided. There were processes in place for verifying the identity of patients. Patients under the age of 18 were required to bring photographic identification for both the parent and the child being treated. The lead doctor understood demonstrated an understanding of Gillick competency and there was a process in place to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.